STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
AN1>
THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS
t
BY
\
A. L, FFOTHINGHAM. Jk.
— \V\
LEYDEN. - E. J. BRILL.
1886.
/ *
_
JJo<>kselI<*r>
1 1 The Hro.«I
j _ Oxford
<£x libnsf
H>etlj fHarbutfjo Htbrarp
1 he Malphono Fdward (1 Mathews Jr Collection
STEPHEN BAR SUDA1L1
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
AND
THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS.
.
.
STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
THE BOOK OF HIEBOTIIEOS.
BY
A. L. FROTHINGHAM. Jr.
LEYDEN. - E. J. BRILL.
1886.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Introduction : the mystico-pantheistic schools of Egypt
and Syria . p. 1.
Ch. I. The writings of Pseudo-Dionysios; their spread in
Syria , and long-continued influence through the
Middle-Ages . „ 2.
Ch. II. Stephen Bar Sudaili, the East-Syrian mystic. Was he
the author of the Book of Hierotheos and the master
of Pseudo-Dionysios? . ,, 6.
Ch. III. Letter of Jacob of Sarug to Stephen Bar Sudaili,
supporting against him the Church doctrine of the
eternity of punishment. Syriac text and translation ,, 11.
Ch. IV. Letter of Philoxenos or Xenaias of Mabug to Stephen
and Orestes concerning Bar Sudaili; exposing his
pantheistic doctrine of the consubstantiality of God
and the material Universe , and the redemption of
all existence by assimilation to the divine principle.
Syriac text and translation . ,, 29.
Ch. V. The philosophic system of Bar Sudaili , as expounded
in the preceding letters, compared with the Book
of Hierotheos and the Dionysian fragments of
Hierotheos . . 49.
Ch. VI. Biography of Bar Sudaili. His birth at Edessa. Pro¬
bability of his temporary residence in Egypt: docu¬
ments confirming this hypothesis. His return to
Edessa and subsequent residence in of near Jeru¬
salem, shortly after A. D. 500 . . 56.
VI.
TABLE OE CONTENTS.
Ch. VII. Bar Sudaili considered by Syrian writers , — e. g.
Kyriakos of Antioch, John of Dara, and Gregory
Bar cEbraia, — to be the author of the Book of
Hierotheos . p. 63
Ch. VIII. The Book of Hierotheos preserved in a Syriac MS. of
the British Museum. Is this Syriac text the original,
or a version from a lost Greek original ? Reasons
for considering the assertion of a Greek original to
be a part of the fraud . „ 69
Ch. IX. The high position given by Pseudo-Dionysios to his
master Hierotheos. He claims only to expand and
present to the uninitiated the ideas of his master.
A comparison of the two writers . . 74
Ch. X. The question of priority: was the Book of Hierotheos
produced in view of the Dionysian writings , or
was it an original and anterior production? . . . „ 81
Ch. XI. The commentaries of Theodosios of Antioch and Gre¬
gory Bar cEbraia on the Book of Hierotheos . . . „ 84
Ch. XII. Summary of the «Book of Hierotheos on the Hidden
Mysteries of the Divinity » . . 91
Book I. On the Good, the Universal Essence, and
distinct existences . „ 92
Book II. The various species of motion : the ascent
of the mind towards the Good , during which
it must endure the sufferings of Christ . . . ,, 96
Book III. The resurrection of the mind, the vicis¬
situdes of its conflict with the powers of evil,
and its final identification with Christ . . . „ 100
Book IV. The mind becomes one , first with Christ,
then with the Spirit and the Father, and finally
becomes absorbed . . 1 02
Book V. All nature becomes confounded with the
Father; all distinct existence and God himself
passes away; Essence alone remains . . . . „ 110
During the first centuries of Christianity, East Syria and
Egypt were the two great centres of false mysticism and
pantheism , and between them there ever existed the closest
relations. Although Egyptian thought and the Valentinian
system exercised a great influence over Syrian thought, yet
the latter possessed certain special characteristics; for while
the Alexandrian schools threw their universal eclecticism into
the mould of Greek thought, and gave a philosophical char¬
acter to their speculations, the Syrian schools were distin¬
guished by a vivid fancy and a bold speculation, to which
they did not seek to give a philosophical or a logical form.
On the other hand, if we try to connect by analogy the
Syrian Gnostics and mystics with preceding systems of thought,
we easily perceive the close relation in which they stood to
the later Persian system, to the debased Ghaldaean worship,
and to the Jewish Kabbala , which probably flourished in their
very midst among the Jewish settlements of Babylonia.
The doctrines of Bardesanes and of Manes preserved great
force and influence in the East Syrian Church, even until
the middle of the fourth century , when S. Ephraem wrote
and labored against them with all the influence he could
wield , as heresies which had deep root among all classes.
From this time forward Syrian mysticism took a more eccle¬
siastical form, and pantheistic doctrine became subtly infused
into the orthodox forms of belief, producing a steadily pro¬
gressive inversion of the Christian faith.
Frothingham , Bar Sudaili.
1
c2
I. THE WHITINGS OF PSEUDO-DIONYSIOS.
After the epoch of S. Ephraem (t 373) we do not hear
of any prominent movement in the mystical school of Syria
until the last years of the fifth century or the first of the
succeeding, when there suddenly appeared a body of writings
purporting to be by Dionysios the Areopagite , the convert of
Saint Paul *). It has been for some time generally recog¬
nized that they were the work of this period 1 2) , and , in all
probability, written by some follower of Proclus3), who may
have been a Syrian monk 4) ; a theory supported by the fact
that, although eagerly received and studied by the whole
East, these writings were brought forward and most power¬
fully supported by the Syrians. All mystics recognized these
works to be the production of a master-mind, worthy of
becoming their guide in pantheistic speculation. The extent
to which they were used can be appreciated on consulting
Syriac mss., where Dionysios is adduced as authority in most
controversial writings, especially by the Monophysites.
But it was not only the mystical schools and the Eastern
1) S. Dionysii Areopagitae Opera omnia stud, et op. Balth. Corderii:
Migne, Patr. Graecae T. Ill and IV. Darboy (l’abb6), (Euvres de Saint
Denis l’Ar^opagite. Paris 1845.
Cf. J. Dulac, ffiuvres de Saint Denis l’Ardopagite. Paris 1865.
2) Gieseler, A text-book of Church history, New-York 1857, vol. I, p. 468.
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. Ill, p. 604. Baur, Ge-
schichte der Kirche, T. II, p. 59 — 65. Gfrorer, Allgemeine Kirchenge-
schichte , 1840. II Buch. p. 902. Dorner, Doctrine of the person of
Christ: Div. II, vol. I, p. 157 and 422. etc. etc.
3) Engelhardt, Baur, Gfrorer, Schaff, etc. Dorner connects him with
the Monophysites.
4) Gfrorer, ibid. p. 912. Gieseler, ibid, considers him to have flour¬
ished in Egypt and to coincide with Cyrill in the doctrine of the person
of Christ!! Westcott (Contemp. Review, May 1867) thinks that the
Pseudo-Dionysian writings «were composed A.D. 480—520 , either at Edessa
or under the influence of the Edessa School”. This judgment is founded
on the relation to Bar Sudaili.
3
heretics that supported the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. The
orthodox at first protested against them at the Council of
Constantinople in 533, and denied their genuineness, by the
mouth of Hypatius, who attributed them to the Apollinarists ;
hut it was not long before they accepted them as genuine ,
for, besides an affinity for such speculation being wide-spread
at this time, they could find in these works many arguments
and proofs in favor of Church institutions and ecclesiastical
authority; and from these two causes the Pseudo-Dionysian
writings were accepted even by the Popes , as by Gregory
the Great *), Martin I 1 2), and Agatho 3).
Almost contemporaneously with the appearance of the Dio¬
nysian writings there appeared also a Syriac version of them,
rendered necessary by the favor they were obtaining through¬
out Syria. The author of this version was Sergius the
archiater or physician of Ras'ain (t 536), the famous Aris¬
totelian and writer on medicine 4). It is a characteristic phe¬
nomenon that a follower of Aristotle should find the greatest
of false mystics a congenial spirit, and should become thor¬
oughly impregnated with his doctrines : that it was so with
Sergius is shown even more clearly by the long introduction
which he prefixed to his version of the Pseudo-Dionysios 5),
where he shows himself to be not a simple translator but
an original thinker in mysticism. Of course the Alexandrian
school was the link between the two. In this connection it
is interesting to note a passage in a contemporary work, the
ecclesiastical history attributed to Zacharias Rhetor, in which
Sergius is characterized as an eloquent man and learned //in
1) In his 34tlx homily, on the Gospel of S. Luke, ch. 15.
2) Acta Synodi Lateran. a. 660.
3) Letter to the Emp. Constantine for the Council of Constantinople, a. 680.
4) This version is contained in Brit. Mus. Add. 12.151 and 12.152 , etc.
5) Brit. Mus. Add. 22.370.
4
Greek literature and in the doctrine of Origen " *). The
Origenistic revival of the beginning of the sixth century was
in perfect accord with the theories of the Pseudo-Dionysios ;
still it is interesting to note this further connection.
The writers who have undertaken to trace the develop¬
ment of the influence of the Pseudo-Areopagite have confined
themselves to Greek and Latin literature, and have neglected
the very important part taken by Syrian writers in this move¬
ment. It was in reality as important as either of the for¬
mer, and can boast nearly as many noteworthy representa¬
tives. Contemporary with the scholia of John of Scythopolis ,
for example, who was the first Greek commentator of Dio-
nysios, we find the version and scholia of Sergius of Ras'ain,
already mentioned; and while the next Greek commentator
is the noted Maximus, who flourished in the seventh cen¬
tury, Syria is represented again in the sixth century itself
by the monk Joseph Huzaja , who wrote a o>cutecucu.i jar. a Sa
//Commentary on Dionysios” 2). Afterwards, and not quite
a century later than Maximus, appear the commentaries of
Pliocas bar Sergius of Edessa 3) and John bishop of Dara 4).
This latter treats only of the Celestial and Ecclesiastical
Hierarchies and does not confine itself to the office of a
commentary, but holds forth original views in various chap¬
ters. During the latest period of Syriac literature we find the
commentary of Theodore bar Zarudi of Edessa 5). It would
not be possible in the present incomplete state of our ac¬
quaintance with Syrian literature to give a satisfactory account
1) Land, Anecdota Syriaca T. Ill, p. 289.
2) ‘Ebed Yeshu, Catal. of Syrian writers, in Assem. Bib. Or. T. Ill,
P. I, p. 103.
3) W. Wright, Catal. of the Syriac mss. of the Brit. Mus. T. II, p. 493.
The MS. is dated A.D. 804.
4) Assemani Catal. Codd. Syr. T. II, p. 530: cf. Bib. Or. T. II, p. 120.
5) W. Wright, op. cit., p. 500. MS. Add 22.370, of the XIV or XV century.
5
of the early Syrian writers who have mentioned Dionysios or
followed his doctrines. Still we can mention during the
sixth century such distinguished men as Severus of Antioch ,
Isaac of Nineveh a) , John of Apamea 1 2) and Peter of Galli-
nicus, Patriarch of Antioch 3).
At the time when, with the opening of a new period in
the ninth century, religious thought took a new form and
scholastic theology began its rule , the influence of the Pseudo-
Dionysios increased rather than waned , and it continued
throughout the constructive period of Scholasticism. He was
made the authority, the starting-point, of most of the theo¬
ries put forth , in one form by the founder of Scholasticism
John Erigena, and in others by the school of St. Victor,
by the German mystics Eckhart and Tauler, and by Thomas
Aquinas himself. A writer has remarked that, if the writings
of Dionysios had been lost , they could be almost reconstituted
from the works of Aquinas 4). To read Buonaventura, espe¬
cially his tract //Itinerarium mentis in Deum”, carries one
back to Dionysios as his immediate inspiring source.
Now Pseudo-Dionysios confesses to having had two teachers
in the faith , S. Paul and one named Hierotheos 5) ; the for-
1) Besides his mention of Dionysios' Celest. Hierarchy (cf. Assem. B. 0.
I, 451) in his sermon »De materia quam exigit anima ut a corporeis
cogitationibus etc.”, there are indications that Isaac was himself a mys¬
tical writer. 'Ebed Yeshu in his catal. gives the titles of two of his writ¬
ings which were evidently of this character: 1) jjcvi.i rc'i.racv.i Ay
»on the government of the spirit”, and 2) »on
the Divine mysteries”.
2) See in Cod. Syr. Yat. XCIII his treatises and letters: 1) on spirit¬
ual government; 2) on the incomprehensibility of God; 3) on spiritual
communion with God.
3) He quotes Dionysios (Div. Names ch. I and Y) in his Libri contra
Damianum L. II, ch. 41 and 47; see Cod. Syr. Yat. CYIII f. 282 sqq.
4) J. Dulac , Oeuvres de S. Denys l’Ar^opagite , traduites du grec, p. 105.
5) Divine Names II, 11.
mer is of course a fiction , the latter may have more reality.
Hierotheos is praised by him in the most glowing terms,
as divine, as an inspired mystic, whose writings are a second
Bible , SevrsQa Xoyiu *) , and whose knowledge of divine
things was far above his own. The fragments of his writings
given by Pseudo-Dionysios are interesting: they are taken
from his ‘Eqcdtixoi v/livoi , Erotic Hymns 1 2) , and from a
work entitled OeoXoytxal GTOi^eicooeiS ? The Elements of
Theology 3). If, as is well known, the whole of scholastic
theology and of mediaeval mysticism is founded on the doc¬
trines of the Pseudo-Dionysios, of what extraordinary interest
.would it not be to discover the very source of these doctrines,’
their origin in a form more abstract than that given by the
Pseudo-Areopagite! Hence it was often asked by the followers
of the latter: who was this Hierotheos? what were his writ¬
ings? what is known of him? These questions remained
unanswered, for nothing could be gleaned concerning such a
man except from the Dionysian writings themselves. Then
the question naturally followed: did such a person ever exist?
was he not a mere Dionysian figment? 4).
We hope to give in the following pages an answer to
some of these questions, and will present in outline an un¬
published work , hitherto unknown to students of this subject,
claiming to be written by Hierotheos, and which may or may
not be really by the master of the Pseudo-Dionysios.
11. STEPHEN BAB SUDAIL1.
To the very period now almost unanimously assigned to
1) Div. Names, ch. Ill, § II.
2) Div. Names, ch. IV, § XV, XVI, and XVII.
3) Div. Names, ch. II, § X, and probably Eccl. Hier. ch. II, p. 1.
4) Dallaeus , Pseuclo-Dionysins Areopagita.
7
the production of the Pseudo-Dionysiana belongs a prominent
and interesting figure in the Syrian Church , that of the
mystic Stephen Bar Sudaili. The connection of these two
phenomena is not by any means fortuitous, but the materials
available up to the present have been so few that his posi¬
tion and individuality have never been clearly defined *).
Among the letters of Philoxenos of Mabug is one written
to Abraham and Orestes, priests of Edessa , concerning Bar
Sudaili 3) : this document is the principal source from which
we derive our information regarding him , for the letter of
Jacob of Sarug addressed to Bar Sudaili himself adds but
little 3), and the few other notices we have been able to
collect referring to the latter do so in hut few words.
Bar Sudaili is important, not only as a prominent repre¬
sentative of the mystical school of East Syria, but as being
connected with an interesting literary and religious question ,
the solution of which has never been attempted: that is,
whether or no he is the author of the Book of Hierotheos ,
and in what relation this work stands to the writings of
the Pseudo-Dionysios, who asserts Hierotheos to have been
his master 4). To collect and present all the available ma¬
terial relating to this subject is what I will attempt to accom¬
plish in a short while, so that competent judges may have
the opportunity of forming their opinion on the question. In
order to do this I hope to publish before long the complete
1) Asseman being the common source of all that has been said on
Bar Sudaili , the only difference is in the variety of construction placed
upon his words.
2) See page 28.
3) See page 10.
4) The probable identity of Bar Sudaili and Pseudo-Hierotheos has
been assumed , on the sole authority of Bar 'Ebraia , e. g. by Zockler in
his article on B. S. in Herzog’s Real Encyk. (T. XV. p. 203 — 5), who is
followed in the Cyclop, of Messrs Clintock and Strong (vol. X, p. 8 — 9).
8
text of the Book of Hierotheos in the so-called Syriac ver¬
sion of a supposed Greek original now lost. The unique copy
of this version has long lain unnoticed among the treasures
of the British Museum. For the present I will limit myself
to giving, in this essay, the letters of Philoxenos and Jacob
of Sarug with a translation , and an abstract of the Book
of Hierotheos , together with a few extracts which will il¬
lustrate its principles and the form of its thought and lan¬
guage. As a necessary introduction to this analysis will be
given, as far as is possible, the chain of judgments on and
references to the Book of Hierotheos which are found
among Syrian writers.
The conditions necessary to the formation of a judgment,
from the intrinsic evidence, on the probability of Bar Sudaili
being the author are , after examining the analysis and refu¬
tation of the doctrines of Bar Sudaili in the letters of Phi¬
loxenos and Jacob of Sarug, in the first place, to compare
these doctrines with those of the Book of Hierotheos , and ,
in the second place, to decide whether there is a per¬
fect correspondence between the latter and the fragments of
the //Elements of Theology” and the //Erotic Hymns” of Hie¬
rotheos quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysios in his book on the
'/Divine Names” and in his //Eccles. Hierarchy”. Finally
we must see whether there are any other documents which
connect Bar Sudaili with the supposed Hierotheos.
The two letters concerning Bar Sudaili have been known
principally through the full analysis of that of Philoxenos given
by Asseman in his //Bibliotheca Orientalis” *); and many church
1) T. IT, p. 30 sqq. ; cf. T. I, p. 303.
9
historians, such as Neander l) , Gfrorer 2) , Horner 3) , etc.,
have, on the strength of this, assigned to Bar Sudaiii an
important position, as illustrating the mystical side of Monophy-
sitism and the influence of the Origenistic revival. His pan¬
theism , which is fully recognized by them , can now be made
to appear in a still clearer light by the publication of the
texts themselves. The letter of Philoxenos bishop of lliera-
polis is written in an exquisitely pure Syriac, and will be
all the more welcome that the writings of this purest of
Syriac writers, though very extensive, have been entirely
neglected and remain inedited. The letter of Jacob of Sarug ,
though it does not furnish many additional data , and does not
show much theological acuteness, is a good specimen of his
flowery diction and persuasive language.
1) General History of the Christian Religion and Church, v. II, p.555 — 557.
2) Allgemeine Kirchengeschichte , 1840, T. II, p. 902.
3) Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. II, vol. I, p. 132.
10
(' ndVr< .IDj Vd Kll >i=73.1 K&i^K'
ar<jD 0-jjI ok' K&ix^x.:i rcH-iL^-a iurc' A^craii Tx^.x.
}qCU.V^ K'oAk'.i r^ioiwia.i ^K&ix-oiA vyx^A KVKio . K'ctAk':!
r<ll=a\ Kb cru . K'ctAk'.i pK'th flo A 2*. . iurK' K'Axii^
. K'ix&.x. vyx^.l\.l vy\ rtAo io^x»4vi
. colxiwil rdlxSx. K'ixw r<l^iv=3 cA . .1^.1 \.l K i=a ix^ rK'i^K'
%1^.1 A^ . ^>-i\ >03 A^-O . rK'JAVi. crt Asa.i coi.irdrj rtArc'
A\\x- . kA\.Tw rd=ol^n rK'-X^.l Aix^ir^.l <*ix^rc250 . rK&AiiL
A^» caA K'i’vn.'aa r<ln.icni ,t-^c\ . r<5a*J\2*. r<L=al^».l cnixin
. K'Txoai K'iixrtLn k4v =?3.x£0 v^k' crA jjlxIL K'oeai.i .. K^olxIOo
^.1 rKLlcn . >in^A ^Kla 00=3 '.XS 00*^1=73.1 '
9 003 rKlVV^ . lOSoiuK' rKLanono r<x2i0.^a K'ix^i^. . Klxx^r.
003 r<lxxn.^ . rd'=o.'=oAr<'A cninsJLO im^.1.1 n.*oni.i rKlx-l_^ .1
*i»\^ o3i<V\o.^ . osi^o-x. Anw^vaao kL'sow rK'ixSn.
1 > CT3 OAxlxA K?^xi\ vxS^cA^O .P^A^l KtlVi) OOXxlflO *003 r^rolxj
1) In the text, A, we follow Brit. Mus. Add. 14,587 (f. 1#), dated
A. D. 603 (A. Gf. 914): as the beginning is wanting in this MS., it is
supplied from B. M. Add. 17,163 (f. 236). The various readings are taken
l)from the latter MS. marked B, also assigned to the VII cent.; 2) from
C, the Vat. Syr. 107 (60, b, 1), which belongs to the VIII cent.; and
3) from D , the long extract in B. M. Add. 17, 193, dated A. D. 874 (f. 98).
The title in 0 is i^cA.l . .a(\n^.» >V=t3.i cnYx.i .V^ oo\.*.i aok
. jlx.io^. in rKllApQP.
a) C r<l=3T b) C adds ,03. c ) C ^Ansi >030i.ir<i3. d) C
omits. e) C 00=3 ^.=300*^=73.1 f) C Kl=7iV^- • g) C
>030&V»t<'. h) 0 0 C omits, k ) C omits. 1) B >030.1x1x3-
11
III.
LETTER OF MAR YA‘QUB TO STEPHEN BAR SODA1LI.
It is well for thee that thou walkest in glorious works,
0 friend of God, and it is honorable for thy intelligent soul
that in the love of God thou sowest daily excellent things
unto the hope of God , for the time will come that thou
shalt reap: and be not anxious regarding the fruits of thy
good sowing, for when the laborer sows he considers, in
his mind’s eye, not the seed hut the furrows full of fruits;
and for this does he sow, that he may gather the fruits.
For, when the soul comprehends the new world, it despises
the possessions of the old world and hastens to divide them
among the needy, that they may be for it as a treasure in
the abode of light , where good things are given to the
workers of good. But this troubled world is as grass, hay,
or flowers: it is a shadow which recedes and hastens to pass
and remove the day-light (?); a lovely flower, whose beauty
soon withers and perishes. Its riches are a dream and its
possessions a deceptive vision. Error attaches to its posses-
12
. v\*33.n * oorA a rdiAxi^ / rC 13iAm.1 K^UjAL vyrd
A>_ct2-=d ^ix^.&titPC'.i rd.330 . r cn..*4v-xA.i rC'AixA^.xs ^ r^.l-wl
. rcAl rdlxln.3 rdl—jji-i.l rd^A^l A_s*. . rdo^irao
rdix-cv.^. >xrAo . tdAix-oi^ rdx°i3 a pc' e :ix2*.A>A*rC' ix^.AiJ^rC'*
. rdAAl pCIhaHod ,03CU0\..u> ^33 fines' i^. . rdxi-33! casein
,.^.1.33 . rCl3i.3airC'i tdi-x^SL, 03*1030.13 >.33.023 4^ ,A\c\
rCAArj lax33 m.^.O._^A ,10.0230 .. rditt,A.x» y^A .sctij.i pC11a1.q
pcA\1X- t'SauiA .TC'iJ^OSy. rClacn* rdn*iQo rd3iA.i*3.i / ndLx:x-i
. ,cn0.3alx* y.Q0l.2i^\33O rCxAA oA 9 . y^oAl Asw rC'J\x\.33
* vx^oA^o .,030.1x13 ^^ioasiraa rd.3iA^. eaA rdiAi-x^q
ii-\l . rd£.xo\l 031030.13 caA •kxOoi^AirC' . KliCiu AswrCli
Axxliir.rC' . ptfkix.i.j.! rd A* pc' ^33 A\A.33rC'.i rdlA^\o.x-0 rC'i^O.i*.
osioA^l erA jiixx-rc' . rdxxji rClA*r<' ^.33 ax3.ii rC'ird^.3 erA
,oi\X.rC\l rdfi2x^i ^ rC'lA.brC' ^_c\crA O.sca^rC'.l . rd02i.ii.Sli
rdtoiii^i oiwiorcb . ,03 rdAxiix. rClsoifu O2xx33oi . rdlfc33.x\
&Aa> rd.Ax33oi3 .^A_3 rd02.i.ii_^i casO^l . ,03 pC1ax»4\^
w rdl-iiA^ ^aia.3.1 rcd\-l-^ caxxk^O . rda-l-^ fC.l_l_^
rdl^\33 rChoSO . rCx31I- ^33 Avxxl rd3l PC'lSiQD . ^0cq330.mAA
-^j-^iAu .xird rcA.i . ealsAoxs rc4\*i3 Anaiia . rd3iY:A
» rd\ O P rd303.i ^Clloix y\ rClA . 0 fdli.i.x3^\33 rcA 71 rdLxlxA
»7^xlx^oii ^iAviA\ rdAa ^O.2k.x0ax^.3 pcIzaxS rdA o rd33 rdoo
a) C rdlivu.33. b) C rd.T»x3.1 . v\33l.i. c) C oriiAxird
d) C ix^A>rdl. e ) C ,i X^.b\r< ,*ixi^A>rC' f) C voois^o. g) C
j3%L. h ) C ^x02i^A\33O- i) C j-x^aA^. k) C .seai^rdl.
Z) C rdlAo. m) With this word begins 14,587. n) C rdlxiiA.
o ) C rdli.i.oAi33. p) C rd303.i rcA. q) C ^xi^OA.
13
sions , as to the treasure-trove of a dream , which in sleep en¬
riches him who is asleep , so that he rejoices in a discovery
which does not exist. When he awakes, he is ashamed and
repents for making the mistake of rejoicing in unreal possessions.
Awake1 Awake! 0 prudent soul! put on the strength of the
arm of the Lord: flee from the vain visions of the night,
and come, rejoice in the beautiful light of day. Cast awray
from thee the possessions which dreams give unto thee, and
despise error, the corrupter of minds, which in vain visions
bestows wealth upon lovers of a sleep full of every harm.
Night vanishes, dreams are exposed; the world passes away,
and its riches are made vile; and error, which the serpent in¬
troduced, is exposed by the light of the Cross. The desire of
wealth and power , which reigned from the tree of knowl¬
edge , has been destroyed by the fruit which dawned from the
tree of life. The guardian of Paradise has been removed , that
the keys of the Garden might be given to the thief who was
deemed worthy of the right hand. The lance of the Cherub has
been taken away and the way to Paradise is open. The planter
of Paradise has been wounded by the lance in the place of the
thieving gardener, and he has opened the garden that those
who were expelled might return to their place. The great law¬
giver descended from heaven, became the teacher of the world,
and the creation was illuminated with his doctrine, (which is)
that no man covet riches which he has not: „provide neither
gold nor silver nor brass in your purses, neither two coats, nor
14
OA.-rt'Ax rtA . ,^awb\b\ r< A
_S •
»rtx>iarciri rt'.xipt'.l rtlsaVxraO . pAsfli^ r<Aa (<^L r^Ao
cn&viri^a.i A\^a * . rtiancni t<1ajtc\k' . »^_cArdx.4> rtA
cn i> c\.3^=) c\ . rt'JsaV^ ^ cv-ocv^ rtA^a
»jaAfio
»cAjort'a . A^aAn cn^AurtA i^.iixrt' . cnAuexs r€.m<\ A ctA
v\=3 . cnA\zxn=) rdsaLk. & ^a^.icxwrtLi rt A.i . rA^crai
^rtilxlJDC\ . ,02x1.0 .1 Pt'i^Cli*- AxiK' . ,CT1jA^C\.2- rt'TAO.l.
p^ikr^A . co-ra ia._x>Ai rtA rtllA^\ a.X-3 . vylixaunA ,VL
rt'ixxja rt&u^ . K*i^cu >octj / rt'jaai^a f rc'TracUb-a
'TLx&b\ r*A . p^'T-l^x. tfiurc' .n^cni .ta . vy\
rKix^oA . r<i±kix. rtAnxA rtiSk-irt':? . rKli^irtla KAvSfcxflo
. irt'-.x* rtLfia*.iiA . .T-x*A\A\ rtA rt'Aii.i^./’iTKLa . Au’UoAxrt'
rdLizn ^573 <x/yAx z rK'aArK' . Ailrt' rti^rj rtilJ5?3 rtiraev,^ ^ A\xra
cqA ^003^.1 v\i.oo . vy_x.=3i cni-ras rt'.jsa.i-aa . rKix>aia
. rt'.xinra v^l.^3.1 rtirartA pax>i4\.l PCllx^ acn . kAxt*
rC'Axa.^A-^a rt'i-^K' O-fiDO . rt'^-^K' v^aK' k *A°i OK'
p^jsnxxA .1 K'ioi ^ jaai^.a rc'.iri^. vry»rc' Ax>.i art' : pcix^x-.i
.TZlL OK . ntixira.i ^Jaw-ia KlartA ?2ax. art' . rtlAiiaisA
rt'^AxA*:! rcAvixza >iflo art' . rt'Axa^Asa 7/2 AxirtAvi rc'AxiAy
rtA\_n.i\ ^octj rt'i-i-V^ . Pt'ia.i.i i-x-V^ r^b\\^^n=3 . Kmi
AurtAA.t . rtlii.^ A\lx=a ^axflo.i rtAuiA n acir3 a . ^»Gn*:iaii^A
Auacn . V rtlnxlcA cnixixa -^V^.^0 °oai\o i_n_s*.
a) C cn^vi^taa. b) B ^cx^:vur<i3, c) B .!».
d) C rctlxlfl- e ) B rc'%.^3CV.2^.i , C rt'-VSZJO.iA Apt' /) C omits.
g ) C A\a.ACT3T A) BC A\lx:a «) C vycnArt' A:) B ajC\.A_A.
/) BC rtAo ix>i=a jw) B AxiAx.V n) B acriAo. o ) B caA , C
cyA. ^) C PtlirLflosA.
If)
stave, nor scrip; and salute no man by the way” '). The
way is fearful, for its pathways are full of snares. Pass on! leave
the world and be not taken up with its affairs. The Lord
says: „Take therefore no thought for the morrow; sufficient
unto the day is the evil thereof” 1 2). Remember Lot’s wife 3)
and hasten your course lest the world ensnare you with its
evils. If beauty comes to thee, despise it: if thou findest
riches, tread them under foot: cast possessions behind thee:
look not after power: let thy country, thy house and thy family
be strangers to thee. The Garden is open and awaits thee :
advance in haste to the beautiful bride-chamber. Lay not up
unto thyself a treasure upon earth4), for the earth is destined
to destruction. Thou art called to heaven; give not thyself
over to earthly things: paradise awaits thee; what willst
thou among thorns? God begot thee of water and spirit, and
brought thee up by the blood of His Son, and called thee
to be His heir. Let thy nature move thee to love the Father
who numbered thee among His sons. Oh ! work like a la¬
borer , and receive as thy wages the kingdom of Heaven.
Oh! fear as a servant, and flee from the fire which threat¬
ens sinners. Minister unto the Father with a child’s love.
Do good, that thou mayest inherit the Kingdom: hate evil,
that thou mayest be delivered from the fire. For on the
fiery passage alms become a bridge to the givers of them ,
and he who has divided his possessions among the poor
easily passes the gulf that is placed between the two sides.
1) Matthew X, 9: Luke X, 4: note transpositions and omissions.
2) From Matthew VI, 34.
3) Luke XVII, 32.
4) Matt. VI, 19.
16
». >.i3oA\xn x-Kfcx Ax..*ocn Kcp^o . AiiKtsA A ^oAx-racrixO a >A
». ►uoAxxfiaiio Ax.*ocn KjAA^v*- . Auocn ^Kbrixi^
»^aVxrD oAx ^Acn A.\gt?aa >AxcA ^oAx.^Axk'o cK':ixfloK' Aurso
Ax!_=d KlioiA -\i_^iA*=73 kA >—ik ai.^ . >.=)Kl! >cna^*T3
c tAcva i*nio kS.U.! .acniAvsno .* ^rtl»CV=3 A^ A\x\.^3 kAo
kAx cnA ^saK'.! K'cyAk’ .iJ373.au.! .* Klnxioo Ai- ^cnlxlxj
.* kAuAx’IK' cn=3 Aa.iO Z.iwK'lO Aij.i ckA CUJ5*3* OK' .>\.X=3
(J ,V=73K'Al3?3.! ^Acttrs •V x> A\a kAi .* K'Axi.xSk.i-.i K'ixjA cifA A^crno
»Kll01^ KlA^xA ^ CX-SlA cA\.! .* K Axx».! Kill.! ^33 ^jOcrA
rd.x.jjL.\ kA . poA— ^A.l Klloi^O "oAiA.! ^ KLx_x> . ‘tAaA.!
K*! 030.3.! Kl=?l,=aAKA Kl\ . Kluflaa Klloi^ Kl\o . Kl=7l\o.X-
k KL&OXsj O02 A kAo . Kli.t73! cnA iuK' KlixJMxs ^iuK'.i
01^-i Ax .i.xsAxAx.^0 KliAvx* 772 A Kl^. . Kia^. oA AuK kL*t=3
Kll .T^=3 / KAAik iiA^Ax kA.! . ^xXaiA JjA\a kAo . KliOl^!
kAo . 0.Tx>A\AxK' ^kAaCV^.! cri^iAx . Kl30.1^\ K'inxK' ix^i.!
KAcv=a.i73 ^_=?3 oiJS?i_^ ^_oiAxA\aai.! Klx_i vA V jjCV._3 jjA\„a
r Kl=73 . Klflaxa Kli 02.^93 Kl\ kIIj! !V\^AxK/.! Kl=73 a 9 Kl^xuAx
. *Kllx=73\\ K&Ask PClwA\a kA . KllOA\! KliAAx .Txj Ax Ax Kl!
Kli-^cx .. oi_\ ,ocn j.£a_x-a.j=a . ^A jj Ax_a «. !.=n
. ^-‘x-A K liK* kA y "to o A\,=?3 ^73! . ^*onA v ij=nKo / Ocn
a) C ix^ 6) C oiaT^O. c) BC insert Av*oct3. d) BC oilxLo
oil^ . e) B kA ocn ^=73 , C *A.t a.i_=73. /) B omits. <7) C
TJSrtK'AxK'.!. A) c KlxxjO. 0 C )oKlj3.!. A;) C KL^OJCxj.! kAA.
0 C kA^tiad.! *=3. m) C cnA A Kl:^. ri) B t<A 0.x=k .! . 0) C
*>0.3 .TxjK' p) C omits. q) C Kl^xn Ax rcAat>1^3. r) B nd3930.
5) C inserts ^Tt73K! t) C omits. u) C V53K! v) C ^GoAxsai*.!,
C *poAoi:=n.
17
//For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat : 1 was thirsty
and ye gave me drink : I was sick and ye visited me : naked
and ye clothed me. I was in prison and ye came unto me.
Therefore- come in peace, ye blessed of my Father” *). Who
would not long for this word so full of every conso¬
lation, and hasten to disperse and distribute among the
needy all his possessions, that he may hear God saying unto
him, “Gome in peace”? And who is there that would not
fear and be fdled with terror and trembling and hasten to
do good works , lest he be joined unto those to whom the
terrible Judge says: //Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting hell”.
Life everlasting, and hell everlasting: there is no end to
life, and no termination to hell. To the day-light which
is on the right hand there is no evening, and to the outer
night-darkness on the left there is no morning.
The bridegroom enters and the door of the bride-chamber
is closed, and is not opened unto those who knock, lest the
bride be covered with shame at the time when the honor
of the bride-chamber should he guarded 1 2). Noah closed the
door of the ark and opened it not unto fornicators that they
might be protected with him from the great deluge. When
judgment has been rendered, supplication is of no avail.
When the door of the bride-chamber has been closed , the
bride 3) will not open unto the invited guests who entreat,
saying: //Lord, Lord, open unto us”. But He answers and
says unto them: //I know you not at all” 2). He did not
1) From Matthew XXV, 34—35.
2) From Matthew XXV, 10 — 12.
3) Here seems to he a mistake of the copyist for
»the bridegroom”.
Frothingham, Bar Suclaili.
2
18
r^lXrC' . fl \.'zp pc' ^*^X pCllpC' *>iv^ 0 pdX oX
^»cnlx-=3^=) v^-.13 . pCiiXiLfiaX pdliu» y-±-?± : ^.xlA c rdl^^j
iv273pCi^ . tx-!k-\ rdlrt' .ik.li >\ rA . ^ ^ctix.Vjk^A.i phenol
^ H-^ii r^-X . A»n.oi\Jto p^—Xrj Klfio.x.^.2) pdX ii KlX
. CJ kAvA^. A /W’V&aK' CflTD T»i\l.l rdl.^3 : Kllixw.l COloX^xO
A\X_=>.1 rdi^iii ^._^73 .* Kl^x^.i ^^x^x.Tx^saX.l rdl_lii *
)a_2x. Kl^x^aa? * ^\oi rtfcn K'^v^ix^jji K'icncvirji .* rdscv.1^
» )aXx=3 oil . ►raK'.l >030^*19 polls oil . ^ cn^iflara Kllilxj
» polls oil . rdinoa^aX ^..xxfioiixss palls oil . K'ivb.il >*ii^.
>> .*Kis.xX^i73 ^oaX.i pcAio.^.!^ 72 oil i* pc' oil . w r^ilix^X.
» Kl\xA ^_cvoX o.A\ . 0 pdiil^ ^ O.^.j.Tris>.i pc'i^o.i- AX^sa
» . (i joaoxsix. ^ooqX oaXo pc^ts Aap^X rc'ix^i.u V nc'io.-iA
» . K'.XA) K'coAk'.’I >CT30.T*T<Ls AaJ»L1 kAi-SI >03 7 pcAAxj.1
K li=\.l / p^.xxxlrD.1 .* 9 kAiOjX^x- oi_la.A pcixl^zji >oa rC'iiO.X^o
. rdsAai. criX iu.1.1 rdioi^ w A 0,^3 .* TlK' A.=l>Au K'lOA.t
• rC'iO—^.l pC'iiJioa.-A.i Kl^-j.Tx v r<Llxl.S3LS OxxlsiiipC' pC'an_Xg.u
rcAxsaa.*.! rdlxl.S3 2’ pcA.i 7r i v^ii^J ^ocaL».i jlt_s paJUSao
«a isAPCfc . pcAioAxXo r&za£i*r< ^szjii ^iuX.i . ^rdxli.
a) B rdX.i aX. ?>) B %93r<^ c) B KilrC'^.T*. e?) C ^xOll'.l^Sal.i.
e) B -AAA y'j 0 PC ^Jo^rC* y^ C inseits cq— \ \
A) B *»HsA.r< *) C ^-xcm. A) C inserts ^ocnX ■VSrtrC'o. /) C
vQoiilSS. m) C inserts ..K'iv.nX^ Ajl°i polls oil. n ) C oiiix.
o) C inserts Kllsuflo ^S3.l ^03 oil TSSK'. /?) C inserts >03. q ) C
>030.1X^*31^73. r) Here begins the extract in Add. 17,193. s) D
pcAio\*X-. t) CD rCUxIls.V n) C AoaJ.I. v ) C erron. rcjjixls.
w) C omits. x) C era A iul- y ) C correctly r^.ilt.O. z) C
iul. aa) C %sao.
10
say, I will not open unto you, but //I know you not”. The
bridegroom answered tbe foolish virgins, who had willingly
allowed the light of their lamps to go out, //I know you not”;
that is: //Raise not your supplications, for they will not be
accepted ; defile not the chamber of the bridegroom when the
honor of the bride should be guarded therein ; remove the
smoke of your extinguished lamps from the door of the bride-
chamber, for behold the guests who are with the bridegroom
in the guest-chamber are illuminated with the lights of the
wise virgins. Come in peace, ye blessed of my Father;
come in peace , ye givers of alms ; come in peace , ye feed¬
ers of the poor ; come in peace , ye sowers of good works ;
come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you on account of
the excellence of your good deeds. Depart, ye cursed, into
the fire prepared for the devil and all his ministers” *). //It
is a most terrible thing to fall into the bands of the living
God” 1 2). It is an offence full of foolishness that, for the
enjoyments of a short while , a man should be led into en¬
tering hell , to which there is no end. They work iniquities
during a certain small number of days , but their torments
have no limit of days or years, for there are no days or
nights. Perhaps thou wilt say: How can a just judge, for
1) A paraphrase of Matthew XXV. 34 — 41.
2) Hebrews X, 31.
20
K* . j2 cx^.1 a ALi-x. KdiftfiAsas
KbaA^xj .* Kllncm Kll_i.i a ^Kli V=OK&
iv-^ . Klxi-x. acn.i Kl^zmra ok' ^Tmi.3 art' .* ^xix. iflr?s»r)
ocp . kA^j.I 003 Klica_^=> f) A^i.t . poAnA.l Kll-i.l
^ix^ kIAk' . tKAio^iAi }o..m1 c OK' >03ai»:i ^*^iJ>o Klx.i.1
)a\nA .1 kScu^d c r^.TX-i .* r^XOn-l Kllriin rci A^xA .1 KllKln
h£l=dv=j ja.i.Vv^.l OcrA.i A>003 KllK^n kA AK' . vviK'
. . . \ . \
Klnxxx> /KA\cuKln ^Kb . )aAnA:i K&tcmisa Aiicu .• K'io.n.i
<-V ^ cars kA^*>.i KlxALx,.t K'Auia.rsa // 4>a._£iA.i : vy-A
K&UjOXSa 9 ^CV^A.i >cb Kbcrsii ..mxArD ^nA>Au
ocino . .ia.4juVr3 )aflai)ixj Klii-*:t\ ^-*oi_r> KliLlx-i
. .icv.jjA=3 ^.xJLx- i-fia-n. rc'icua Kb cal kA^xi ^xix- 'iam.a.i
Kbcni osAicmK' .raoi\ . ^ALux. v&n. K&aruii jxV^.i acts a
m T-x-^ *
. KlliSl* %=3 KfflaxV^ . K^aiA\ K'.icn ^K' . n >03 K^lKlik
K'.x-w.i AA^a . 0 A\i^=> Kb da .TQ.xxA-n kAx^jl k'.t-w
k'-xxxx^tA oaxSitza .T-n .* Kdu\isa*ca=a jjAii .icuAs K&x.s,.x.
. Klmoa kA rc'inw ok' Kim an kA :Pr<b\ a.A£as oainitiui
Kta A Kti Klu.t ,° vyixn.i v^*rc' c\A
KlxxA KlnV.IXO .^nJLn-A.l K'io.A s"uA r ^Aos * . 9 KllKln
xx )cAnA . Kxxj Cv\k/ ‘rAiA .raK'c^v kA.i rdi^w
a) I) Kll-n*K/.i. 5) C A^i. c) AD read erron. At<! a?) D
omits. e ) C KbJ\X3. /) B Kiiom , C JuKllrdn. g ) D in¬
serts >03. 7i) BC ^.lAu. i) D ji.i.iUSM.l. 7:) C omits. I ) C
^jKo. m) BCD correctly insert >03. n) B omits. o) C ^ .in..
V) ^ 03 AlCXn.V'San. 9) B omits. r) C inserts , Kim 03 VSpr^ kAk'
^.Aoa.r
5) C omits.
21
sins committed during ten, twenty or a like number of
years, condemn the sinner to fall forever into hell? But the
judge is just and his judgments righteous, thou lover of
rectitude ; for if it be not just that He should cast into ever¬
lasting fire him who has sinned during a short time , as is
written; then also is it not just that He should cause him
who has been righteous during a short time to inherit the
everlasting kingdom. And if it seems to thee that the sinner
should be judged according to the number of years during which
he has sinned, it would then follow that the righteous should
enjoy happiness also according to the number of years dur¬
ing which he practised righteousness. So that he who sinned
during ten years would remain in the fire for only ten, and
he who practised righteousness for ten years would also
remain in the kingdom for only ten years and would then
leave it.
If the first (proposition) be just , and the second also right
(in consequence), then the thief who was on the right hand
could have been but a single hour in the Garden of Eden ,
for he burned with faith but for an hour when he besought
Christ to remember him in his kingdom.
It is not so, friend, it is not so; not according to thine
opinion is the righteous judgment of the just God governed,
(which is) that these should go into eternal fire , and the
righteous into eternal life. The sinner who repents not,
if he had lived forever , would have sinned forever , and
22
*
jjA\3aA\r<'i h caix^ii Kl^cu <^a.2Ac\ . a Kfcvcn
pcAszn* r?\*b\±. ix\^ 003 . ^aAiA.i Klica^rj cii*r<ir<!^ A^l
. / cnx£i A vsrtK' e ^cn . K&Klx^go K'AAliL >c ncxfia^o ^Kbcn
» . K&r<Lx^£0 KAAliL »sA AvkK' . >3ifia=)A>r<' „iAvx.nC' jAcv.^K'
.* cnixik-i V ^cn.i r<licnc\ / » k&Kx^cd rtix’iaA
KlXo .on ©Xu ‘ <\.n.ea ^AvKb ^aul re*. \ t. ro&rdxi^fiam *
^AsA:, / cnixiwi jjA\33 772 ^au.'l ^A\^33 . cdAuA^jj ^ Avoflo^AtK'
>A^A Klico.l * K'.icn ,co 0 K&CUpd^O . nrdjjixl=3 ^aflctaJu
. Kbco
K'cnArtiA *x)l_V_2^ rtlnj.iu cnlxSwi ; .SiK' r<ll_^CT3
^ OlctA 1 onlxia^s rtA.i* ,crJCV.xx> s AK'* . rorHx3^3
77 T*^\2w ocb ,iv\soA icrifloo . rc&anxiu.i kA^ooi k£> cvsa
AnuAtKb : rdiwcv.x- jcncvAix. ixV^ . .scVxK' rctioxoais
cn'^lx.C\\l rtfA\ia.4> A^LwA^rCh : r<f ‘'i*\zn r<L=>ngl^..=» odv.^
. coAva.xxt73.i rdAasi ^-33 ,0305*3.103 17 cufia^sAxrcb : p^.i.vii^a
»4>a5?3r<'.l rd33.T^..i . cnard^i Kt\cn i.'SrtPC' «' ^ 03
/> r<l\c\ t^c\ai.iV30 . yl573 ,A\03ix5oA\ Tuv.^ r<iA
(i CoA>CM^X=3 }OlJl_^A 011x3^3.1 Ilk. . P '.x.lAu
a) C 003 KixA^xi 6) C inserts rtLx^wl. c) B A^l Aurtflr<^,
C Laj AuKilik. d) C Au3 Kl\jS3.i. e) C rdl^co. /) C
inserts . >._x_£i— 3- g ) C r<ll5kCnc\- h) B kA\k lx^a> r<l 1-1X3. i
. )aflaaAvi , C jlo Kxix..i 0 BD CVOq^d A>rC^ A:) BD Avfla^oA^K':
B adds ,qa. I ) C A-A^ttO. m) C r<ll AQ3.1. n) D rtf xx dn .
o) B K&cuao, C K&CU^. p) c >\.2kA.i K'lCUs rtliorj ^.lAu.i.
q ) C K&CV.l^.xs. r) C . ^oAiA.l rdLu A>i* Jur<lir<l^ rdnxl\
. K'oqA KiA xA^.3.1 i_jj >1^1 001x3^3.1 A*.. 5) BC ^rC*.
*) C omits but inserts after nrihcca. w) C ixCisAv v) C ►fllSrtAvK'o*
w) BC Killers.
23
according* to the inclination of his mind to continue in sin
he justly falls into everlasting hell. For the rich man who
filled his barns with many fruits said thus unto his soul:
„Eat, drink, and be merry; thou hast much goods laid up
for many years” *). And thus his mind was bent on making
merry for many years; his life therefore is cut off, but not
his sin , for his mind was bent upon giving itself up to
enjoyments forever. It is therefore justice which condemns
this man to eternal fire, for, as far as his will was concerned,
he would have lived forever in gluttony. Thus also the
righteous man justly inherits eternal life, because, as far
as his will was concerned , he contemplated serving God
forever, although his life was, beyond his control, cut off
by death from the course of righteousness. Job also , so
admirable in the midst of temptations, is my witness; for,
while he was attacked with ulcers and his body was cor¬
rupted with sore boils , the ulcers of his body mingled to¬
gether , and his members made putrid by the discharge from
his sores, he spoke thus in the intensity of his anguish:
'/Until I die mine integrity shall not depart from me. My
righteousness I hold fast and will not let it go”1 2) , and
1) Luke XII, 19.
2) Job XXVII, 5—6: »and mine integrity etc.”, an erroneous repetition
24
rdjcaAo . » >b\C£?ix'znb\ fdA tA vA a . ^kL^iAxk'
rdA^cni ncfc\cn jjl-a^\-_,^3 ^ ^cn.i : Kln-x-nA rtli-x-Sx.!
K&CV^Asn ^ctA ja.iv^o ncA.l Klli.1 cOcn KLlxK** . rC&CV. rL*.1\.l
«JX ixSix. ^.v^a . rd5aAc\._x. KlA.i cm Klxx-i.i -• "ri \ v\ i
/rdsaio . v^xix.i .rA^a r£*vsn A\ir^ ja.*.i\.i . i:=o KimX
^cn=3 A\Ac\ v\Au>igk' . klA.t^. ^a S'vybcuK^
A\^ : )ol^A.i nc'mira KLA^xj A^i h AurdlK'-^CN . rC'ivY.oaAA
. rc&cv.n.aAA ►i^A^k' kAg : rcA^xxi )al:sA.i ,cnan.x-dw ** Axtn.i
^acaxSil a.=3co_*.i AA^sa /^paV^A.i pcLx_xjuA Klnim ^cLx.g
^».l ^X . K'A>CVn~*.l\.l rdjxiorcla .^cA^cnil )q1^A.i ^Gcnlxa^G
. K^nA^ . <-A AuK* rdl=3\ .v^.i . ^A ixStx. Jc rdx.cn
rcA^cni ^ . K'ia.:^ rdljjAa.^ ^ Klrai Kll^-iCVA rdv^iG
cri_X A\-xA.i rdxJ57lx..l pC&a.^Asn . rC'Av-tncLi AxXo.i rdix^x.
rtlA.i .‘K'lCUfc.X rdl=3\.i n rdi-w j.J5a mjjoi^J.lG rdsnAox.
K'ia^ OK' Ai-iK* . )aLA.i 0 rd^m\ ^OcqI.^73 jjl-Sl-1.1
vyiAiflua.i . rc&Ti^x. iA\._=j nciA^cni Anns' . pc'cti.Ak'.i
vryiV^ru rdX.i . v^A rdAxiiAg
vyA
K'i-i. )ocv-i Aag . Ai-jpS' K&ixaaX .i_n_:L rd*iG.x.
(l _x A cn v^ix^i A.^. kiXg . vy^n.inX P A^x.gA\x.Avi
.TaAuwV " 'Acn ^ 'V^ X
.1.1 t<!S73CV.x A_* KLXpS' . .in^JSaA r Ax-iK*
a) B Kl&im. &) C Kll-^cn.l. c) BC CULxrd d) D inserts
>cn. e) B pdx.cn. f) B inserts >cn. g ) B c^A^cUA. h) BC
Ai_jkKLl.^G. i ) Here ends extract D (Add. 17,193). k) C omits
Klx.cn. 1) BC .^.ctiv-ai- m) BC jaGV^JG. n) BC Kl jjuui .
0) C Kl&ia-Xy. p) BC A^_X.GAx..X.r<'G. q ) C omits. r) C
A\x*A\^.i.
25
mine integrity shall never depart from me. What judge
would not award the everlasting kingdom to this steadfast
mind, thus bent on the course of righteousness that he might
live forever !
Therefore it is meet for us to say, //Righteous art thou,
0 Lord, and upright are thy judgments1), and thy righteous¬
ness is above all blame. Thy ways are upright 2) and in
them are no stumbling-blocks”. Justly does the sinner fall into
fire everlasting, because his thoughts were bent on sinning
for ever, neither did he turn unto repentance. The righteous
also are worthy of eternal life , because they devoted
their souls and minds to walk forever in the way of
righteousness.
We ought , however , while we yet have time , to sow
good works, that we may receive a great recompense for
but little labor; for an excellent life of but few days, the
kingdom of heaven which has no end. (We ought) to
flee from pleasures of short duration , lest through them we
bring upon ourselves eternal torments. But thou , 0 pious
man, hasten thy course after excellent things: //forget what
is behind thee, and strive after what is before thee” 3).
Let not the good thou hast done dwell upon thy mind, lest
it prevent thee from doing what thou hast still to do. But
every day that the sun rises upon thee make a beginning
of goods works to do them, and every day complete them,
4
1) Psalm C XIX, 137.
2) Cf. Psalm CXLY, 17. Revel. XV, 3.
3) Philip. Ill, 13.
26
KlA.l.l . ^Kl^-cit *>oA\.^t30 .°r<\jx-&r\ r^A ^oliAo
^oY'A.i cK&G.A»A:i A-\pa . K'AiiA^ *A^ KhosAx KI^sAcul
Kin ^,0030 . Acu^An Auk* -\j\iAv5*3 . k!»i\cul oi\ AvA.i
/ KllAncosA T-xA^n e K'mJ A*no ^K'XO
K'Tn-x. Ktoosa . KIsAcul eaA A\_>A .1 K li-A.va /^oxiAu.i
cA\pdn /^VSOK'.l kAxm.1 Kill .1.1 Kl\.o An=s >03 . vylA2*A=D
. )aAiA.i kLx-4 A KLh-V.1\0 . poA^A.l K'lO.A ^_iAon
Kaos An vycuu .* Sencv.t^ijj’i^ao CT3A>a.iaA^=3 ' ^ocp.i
»
/^OcrA 1 t^KA^i ^Acaa ^ Auk' „\A m
»K'q3i^o .‘Ar^r^sA A ^joAudoiaO Av»oct3
^ocaJ2«.-2fc-C\ . ►licvAvxni-K'a Av-*go3
.K'loncu.i kSA^kIss vCsaAutoAi
m
A
^iSaLk. ^AsA.l KU
v r
JSflK'
•:• Av^Ax.
a) BC >v\ -t.Ai. b) C ca-s*n\. c) C K&icxAsa. d) C >003.
e) B inserts >cb. f) C ^CUl*.lA\U.l. g) BC K'T-SOK'.T h ) B
inserts ^ TLS>3. i) C >GnCVi*L.v>T=3 &) 1 ^\A u t) c t^k&k'.i.
m) C omits
neither cease forever. Direct the faculties of thy mind so
that without ceasing they do good works. As thou desirest
to enter into the eternal kingdom which has no end, reflect,
tremble, and fear the everlasting fire prepared for the wicked,
who will be condemned by a judgment which has no end.
Let this word of the terrible judge be present in thy mind
which saith : //These shall go into fire everlasting , and the
righteous unto life everlasting” '). May He by His goodness
and love make thee worthy to he numbered among those to
whom it is said, //I was an hungered and ye gave me meat ,
I was thirsty and ye gave me drink”, and with them mayest
thou be a guest in the abode of light in life everlasting. Amen.
1) Matthew XXV, 46.
>0310^.1 kLx-jLx-jd rdlgteirdo Jac ninrd A>O.A
•*.♦ l1 rd*cniGr<' in rdlsA^oo AA^73
.VSH^Lg : ^73 Atrd rdlnt >.TI31 GOT K'i x^O> rd.£^Sto
i.T-JL. cq_A»i rdxiPC'i <K_3.A_1 . paix.iGK'l rdiAxrd-n rdx-cn
rtlnAvikO k'Ai-Stsg.-* AAn )qi.d <\^A>cA
^l£73 pdfla^Aiivi KLi^J^ Aal cnA Ktocp .v* . >030571x03.1
.awil^rd 4urdb»ix>.i ^a.isa Gcbo . Gi.i&ULrdi ^cucb.i rdiuAtpdso
rdJLjr? jAx-.i rdird &A-1.1 Goriirdl i-x_^ in tor? : Qasi^3.i
. cninoo inn aA A^iAvra . rcinJxn .^rd i.vl.ig : ^a^A^al
^573.1 ^.i rd^j.Tj : rdir^ rdA j._573 i_x-\^ rdirp
. oax& icn An.i rtfiA^G rdnrx' >cno3\*r<' ix^ cuocn : pdi^oo
.ICuAn all Gen . rdlnooa rdnxx-1 rdialox rdnivnn ^alaci.i
K&a-Si-i-M ^.-^73 t-x-=31G rdArd . nxu&u.i rdAa sa-x-Ooicn
. K'caArdA rdiuin nctv.jju-*50 i\*r<Lx_A_\i god . K&Ox.iGca»G
rdnixiA .=ja4\ A\«a.iG . cn^OSkP^ K'Gcnl ^n.i^aln.i r<^273.iG
AA ^V'ioG . K&Olx^Ooi^ An. AK' K'inoo ja.fla2iG . r^i’w
^573G rd’VizAa^ nAnG . rdn^.l rd.57in rd^jxi.i rdxiin
.rcA^Gi.OD'TcnG rd i a cqji o rd^ixA Ard . rdrArd ^cA pdl^Au.i
1) The only known copy of this letter is in the same Vatican MS.
107 (f. 60 r. to 68 v.) which furnishes us the various readings marked
C for the letter of Jacob of Sarug. The copy seems to be very correct;
unfortunately, the close is wanting.
29
IV.
LETTER OF MAR XENAIAS OF MABOG
to Abraham and Orestes , presbyters of Edessa , concerning
Stephen Bar Sudaili the Edessene.
I have learned that Stephen the scribe, who departed from
among us some time since, and now resides in the country
of Jerusalem, sent to you, some time ago, followers of his
with letters and books composed by him; taking care at the
same time that the arrival of those whom he had sent, as
well as what he was astutely desirous of accomplishing,
should be concealed from us. For he thought that, were I
to learn that he had sent to you men and also writings, his
hopes might be disappointed. He has insanely imagined —
whence I know not, but certainly from Satan, for he is the
Father and cause of every heresy — to put forth in a book
an impious and foolish doctrine, which is worthy of being
reputed not only a heresy, but worse than Heathenism and
Judaism, because it openly assimilates the creation to God,
and teaches that it is necessary for everything to become
like him. It also falsifies the Holy Scriptures, and even
destroys faith in Christianity, teaching that every man may
sin as he pleases, and dissuading Heathen, Jews, and here-
30
K4u3Cf3C\J»\o . K^V-X-x*. n oglA AK' A \^-v^nr\
. K&Cljax.it ^Aul KL^cn l\o kAstisAcn . K^cyAk' r^\i^
. JuK* KlA KLl-a.i icVxA=j c\.A r<4\^.xX-i cniAsa v^K*
. Kll-2wia.2k.l K'AujG.rta K^xA AK' kAk*
^c^ixoo.ia K'&.iJsaA&i qoot-\^.i k't-cl-»k' >cnaiur<' %uo
kUx’Ax-icn .K&salrsa K'.iaaix.ta K'xcvui cbcAcva.io . Ki.'iw
oixiuK'a Kl^_JLC\i KlxJL^a AuKi-xAu.! >ct3C\ . Klava fla.33
Kt\co.i V50K' Kllx-Sk .%-!> A-\p3 AK'.l . rC^oioAl
T31^CV . ^ovAuK' kA\*vAv* T..'53K'A>K':i ^Acno . K'ctAk' *)clv
Aa\ c\.uaAA>a Klx Ax- cl.1^1^. Aurd.n*ia>a
* t
A« KiA
.T-^-L.=3 AK' kAuXIx^^TaA k4\OA.1x> ^-33 Ki^iaav
Two .* Kxxx\.t..i _ cuK Klt?ixx2i via K'J\*.icvs?i2x5ac\ k'.t^AoA*
A 1^-73 kAo . Kcn^K Kv^S pav KboriaA K!lx^
aAA^o.i j.AaK' ^-33 Klxixas aAlxj oivx^.i ^Acn ^sAxi-rao
. ^xnoai rKvAv* yojtt o.ica floK'.t j.AxK' kA.i »cns . « _ CV.-iK'
^CxcrAfil . ^VJaxi ^ _ O.JIK' C\.AA^jb.i .^0-3 cb KiAcx
V^Kb . ^.x^l.^3^73 kA.33CV.X. W A>cA T^ZJK.l K'.Txx^K
. cnL».lC\ K'.l.Tii.f Kilx^ An ^^OcrixiuK'.i KlaiX-O.^a.1 K^.icn
ori3ivc\ KbrAKia ^acb.i : VrtK' cscn AKb Klb^, Kl^cn
%V33K':i vy*K' ^Aco ^.wAvaaa . ^a.uaa .tm A\cA.i k/A>c\..»:vu.3
. A^l3 Aa KctAk' gdAAso v^K' cn=3 Kbcn.l r^na.Tu \lKla
^^K'.l >013 . kAiooAk' K'.Vw . rAoiuK' K'.Vw . Kllx^ .Tw
•a Kli-xJ^ .ta» ►!=> KlvaK* via ^oaona k&oAukAj k1x^33
^J573 . >003 OvAu ^.-33 rC^OJLXlisJx^jO iflfllai k4>CUT3.T^
31
tics from Christian instruction and from being converted to
God. It makes of no effect holy Baptism , and the giving of
the Divine mysteries, and labors and struggles for righteous¬
ness. For if, according to his impious words, not only
will there be no Judgment, but all will receive the same
measure of retribution , then the same honor will be accorded
to the apostle Peter and to Simon Magus, to the preach¬
er Paul and to the traitor Judas, to the Apostles and Evan¬
gelists *). And, what is especially full of an impiety akin to
insanity is, that he says, that everything is of one nature
with God. What has just been detailed is most impor¬
tant and most completely reprehensible ; for then the
Apostles have in vain worked , and converted all nations
from Heathenism to Christianity, if even without instruction
in the faith and baptism they are to be equals of the Apos¬
tles, and are to become consubstantial with God, the Lord
of the Universe. Hence there is no difference between those
who died for Christ and those who killed them, for they
who were confessors of the faith will receive nothing more,
and they who killed them nothing less, because all together,
as he says, will arrive at one perfection; and as the mem¬
bers of the body are of the same nature as each other and
as the body itself, so, as he means and even says, are we
in God and with Him in unity the one with the other.
These things may be known, he says, by the mystery of
the first day of the week, when, as he says, God will be
all in all: one nature, one substance, one divinity. If then
it is possible that men should become consubstantial with
the Divinity , then the dispensation of the flesh and the In¬
carnation were superfluous. From misunderstanding, therefore,
1) The antithesis which must have followed seems to have been
omitted in our copy.
32
rdoArd rdooni3 rdjjLxlx-3 ,03 tdiAia A>o\.3 3x\^ cniv^.T-* rdA
. rdl^floo rd-s-kLi rd.3o3 rd-lsAo.. »nAio rd.T_ra .* A_^_a A^
VA^rd ^\.i . A.nn A^rd rd.irdiL A^. rdA-^rd i_zi_^3 rdbK'
rdoArd 73.2*. rdooni*A ,03 .UM izx\ ^rd rdiin.£03
K^Cvlxjj A_2*..l wK' ^OCTlxV^. AK'.I AA^tt . Klla N .T-JJ
V\xT
rdooisaA '.x.Tx&Uh. Klix^ .txj *133 i^3r^ . o\&> rdAi ^ooJl^
rdAvAjitt-a oi-=d rdA.l Al.O . rdA\ocrArd.iO rdA*oAurd3 cn_L».i
^.Axrdra rdAo : 10.4*33 aix2?33.o3 ^Aonra rdAo : ^xraA\33 ^.T»
rd-iiA^3 rdn.-iO.LO rdi-^rd A-l. India Al^ A^ra ^Jusardi
A\_i— x-a Aurd.i Klt-l-^ClL rdAo rdn:nAu3 si&&o rd-Xxra o
tdAioAurdi rd^a rdVlO : CUjaXmA .Sw.Tx rdAui^aA rdA>oAurd
: rdA>oAv»rd rdA\_*i«.rD ord : rdoosAx rdAi-xVa rd_^Ajj CM- .1
: Clnz^ ,03 rd&AsftA Autd^xiAvi ^xA»rd rdl^Aifcra rdAo
A\ 3-4*3 . rdiicnnx-O rd_nx°iflp *A^xrd rdiOV-wAusa .V&.l rd_rp^
AAn Ardi 003 .* rdi^a ^3.x>Ox Atoso.ia oaxfloios ocn Ard
v AnJ rdl=a\
rdnxAxi^i ,03 Ard.i .. ,03OJ5a_x_fla=a ^_x3 J\-jjuLLd
»• rdYxxj i^CD 1445*30 rdJL5ao*3 : ^15*3 iirtrdi ^oA^30rdiD
3A . rdiixjrd rd.xi-=j . rdlsaAvisa rdA\AA>3 rd-Jiaoxao
. rdxxra Ard ,oruino . ^ardn.i rdi03 rdsAs*. AAvsts fdA\=jOVw3
rdaLac3.%4>o . rd»A ox- iA\=a rd»oo33 15*3 rd.i TdAv**xA rdAvax\o
rdcnArd rdocnii i.*A\2w cn-ra.i rdx A.573 ox. .xOSoAurdi T-snrd
ndlx^ .1.44 . rdcrArda rdocn >3.15*3 A^.i ^3 0303 . \\n A*
S03 003 Av-xrd rdocT23 A_x_^._5*3 rdA.l . rdAxoAurd rdi_xjO
this saying of the apostle, //that God may he all in all” J) ,
he has foolishly imagined and produced this impious and
foolish doctrine, which perhaps would not even be accepted
among demons; for l think they would tremble simply to
hear that they were to become consubstantial with God ; for
also concerning them , as well as all the angelic host which
did not fall , does he assert , that they will become consub¬
stantial with the Divinity and Godhead. And as he did not
know how to understand this saying or to perceive what
preceded it, neither was he able to consider all the things
which are said in the Holy Scriptures on the reward of the
righteous and the punishment of the wicked. Neither did he
know how to distinguish between the Divinity and the crea¬
tion, and that it is not possible for the Divinity through
change to become the creation , or creation the Divinity.
Furthermore he does not accord with the doctors who have
interpreted this saying in an orthodox manner. He desired ,
being puffed up like a vain and proud man, to orginate her¬
esies himself also , like John the Egyptian , whom for a
short time he even followed.
I have also found in his writings that he has imagined an¬
other false doctrine, founded on what it is written in the Gospel
that Our Lord said: //Today and tomorrow I work miracles,
and on the third day I shall be perfected” 1 2). He fancies
that , speaking in a parable , this world was established on
the sixth day of the week , and he calls it evil ; and the
Sabbath (he calls) the rest which comes after the comple¬
tion; and the first day of the week, he says, is the consum¬
mation, because then God will become all in all; that is,
everything will be in God, one nature and one substance; so
1) I Corinth. XV, 28.
2) Luke XIII, 32. It is differently quoted later: see p. 37.
Frothingham, Bar Sudaili.
3
84
ocorj,i r<i=>^:ta / ooA>cu:miJ=o ^Annsa.i ^O-icoo
. ^c\ik- .*v» A\3 Klwoio K't-tjo KiiaK' .soil Kl\o . Kl=iA^=o
^3 .T-x> ctA^ rdicn.i rc'.iirLa r^.iCUi^ ix\^
r^.t73C\lr» rtliAiK' . ^Gcrai T-ra^ K'jsoo.Uao Kilxik .1-a> * .*ww
^CUcn AK* ^C\Ocri3 rf\xS^n ^JSO kA * .* Kilxik .Tm >.1=3
KAuira.i .icuArs cA . KiA_=Ao=3 Ax^SO KfocaiO .* rd=i3a..l-fl
. l-w .T_x> r<l=?3C\.lr5.i .^ocriVx.iO kAk* .. K'A>oAvxK' ia_^-
rtf&\=30Vw ^j£3cL k4AA> .icuA=a )aA ^Aco.i ■vsarc'.i .Tx=s
. KxlAipeAiio Ktaa^cA^G rcVi ^ocoxAuK' : r^nzra.TajO rcAxajLG
k^x^k'^octA^ ix^GK'.^aflo i=A r<^iw ^AorA
v^nc' ^x^.TxAv^a ^Acn klA.&K'.i OK' . Kll-2kOO ^GorixAuK':!
. k'Ju.iooqx K4>au^Axj=73 iAu Axrc' ^x.i . i^prc' oqs.i
K'i-i ? xxAo . ^x4A* rc4v=?ixxi iAi=a Arc' ^ax*A\
(sic) KiiTjAa k&oikIm .tuA . k1xV=t303l KiiiwrAo rcAuxxl
rc'.is j.Acn.1 .^oooAA^o.i rd. liwK' rc'onsax- . K&aorArc'
ov=zjncb .* K&viA t=?3 pc' .ico A\ooo .icuA=j ixV^ r^.iocnA . Josdc\
rClnJ,*.l\0 . ^xl3L .aAk' K'AuxxI pdxOCD P<A\SaxX3 ^A\-3 ^J=0.1
KliKlfiO . ^=330 ^.x-l^A KLxA^xjO t< ^.aflOO ^-x.Ll PC'
A^ ^xiauLOfl^o rAtxio . rdxji^A rdxxxl A^ra ^xSw&i&Avsa
iio T_=?3n^.i ,n^A\2k rc'.ico rc&cuinsa^o A>clA.i . ^xBacui-
ctAxx* pcAo rdraA^L ^oAurc' kA.i .^oAvjk' ^.xiA^.i
r<Ao ^AvL kAg jAiiPC' kA kA\xS33.1 kA«xx1=}.1 . K'ctAk'.I
^rcb .»rc'ca\r<'.i r^=wr<A=o vyxK' ^ocqxAup^kAk' . ^x^o.tvso
>co K&T-jjKto K&unxJL >ci3 rcA^’i-wrc'.i j-a.-QPK'.l >ooA
»
»
35
that there will no longer be, He who creates and those who
receive his creative action; He who shows benevolence to
those whom He loves; and there will no longer he Father,
Son and Spirit; for, if he raves that the Creator and all his
creatures who are distinct from each other will become one
nature and person , how must not consuhstantial persons of
necessity also become one person ? Thus there would be a
confusion, not only of the creation with the Divine Sub¬
stance, but also of the Persons one with another.
But in that he says that these three days alone , the sixth ,
seventh and First days of the week are mysteries , types and
parables, he has posited this alternative: it is necessary
either to believe that all (the days) are to receive this
manner of interpretation, or else not to believe that those
are as he says.
Following the Jewish doctrine, he appoints after the re¬
surrection two retributions, one of which he calls rest l) and
the other perfection , one liberty and the other divinity ,
together with other names which he has contrived and ap¬
plied to them. For to the Jews alone had this theory oc¬
curred , who sav that after the resurrection there will be a
rest of a thousand years, during which the righteous will
eat and drink , and sinners will hunger and thirst ; the just
will give themselves up to every bodily delight, and the
wicked will suffer every torment. Concerning which belief
it is written that Our Lord said: //Ye do err, not knowing
the Scriptures nor the power of God: for in the resurrection
of the dead they do not eat nor drink, neither marry, but
are as the angels of God” 2). But regarding his belief, that
rest is one thing and the kingdom another; and the glory
1) Cf. Hebrews III and IV.
2) Mattb. XXII, 29 — 30 and Mark XII, 24—25; the eating and drink¬
ing is an interpolation.
3(>
pciiTuKh • rclAjaaox. *X».1.r>.1 Klwiraar. r<liijjr<6 :
Kliai OK' Klt*.T n rdaiia PtllAK' T373pcU . r^Aa73cv.x- c\cn
rKloaaA^ kAxAJ^ ^AcrA.io • Azxn kIi^Asts oK pdwutA-i. OK'
. r<^a.l^»\^3 rtfivaaiiA . *i^o r^.i vyrC' ■ix^A^Aifiorc' . -^A^
. gq*t_\c\pc' KL*.,Ujju ^73 rc&a,l^\A\a73.i rKl^iacA cnnoai .i__a
Kbcrxi.’i ,03 r<lnx=j.TjjAo . Kxxxx.'ao tAaso Aa.i ,cn rcAvnAo
T-irK* ,T->x-» <K_3 .1 K'.icra pc't^is.i ,C\_x30 . Aara A — a K'oiAk'
\=l£o &Ai> ^.Aoa A^a . rc'oArtlra Kbcni.i ,cn ^3 .'r6tixia\
r<^*.T*.i j.AaK'. r£x*^2k A>cA ^ia?3 vstspc'.i rtAsa ^ .yx xi«.i
. pairs' pclAo rd\ir£tt rtlAo pAp^Aa r<Aa p^.Qq^cA^ rdA.i
. jaai^K" rdx*H^.l ^jocruso.i pzLii-^afio.i p^ixxajL^ p^ApC*
». r^S73CC» cvcn.3 IcA cars . ^*cnJL»To ocp ^.icvaa.l r<^3 va^K'
».Kl^£a A\ jaaA . cqA ^ia^rK'o p£x»H^ pdJt.irc' asii?
>>0^^ cA\ . _OoA ia?3p*\ . ^A^nS73.1 pdrs^. 00.10103.1 AA^ZJ
».TZi^ ptfixcxoorc'o . p^.i rK'.s- rtlip^ ja^373 p^co.i . rdicn pcA^.AA
». pcCirK' rcA373(ki.373 rc’&vAAvi p^_a*ja.Ao ioj^3C\ p«dl^3CV.A pdirK'
»coiA\=j.’l cvorAo . i 0.2^00 r<* ijjtSno r<li.^?3 cu 1 A rd\o
».>AaLiop^^3 irA pdaii aapdii KjjAX^a r<A.i AA^j . A\n^
,cn rc&pdl^ p^Avrsoi-Sk. rdia^cv.^ 003.1 ptfAu3ii73 %jy*r c'
. kA\4Jlx3.1 P&lSkcA^ K'iuil- ijj£730 I K'ank. 0^103.1
irdl^ciL iA\=a ^73 ^1^73 . ptAsocxx-.i p^irK' ptfAAAx.i p^sa*
AK' ptfcn.i . CV.1JS73 K'irK' . cuA^J.I *JV=73 .%*A\2k. .30^
. PC'crAp*' rKllxa 1x> .^OoA ^oen 03^x1^73 •c^.rC' kL».iooq.»
»P^.1.^73a*.1 ,03 lA\=3 ^73 ^1^73 ia73f<.1 \
rdiao3
before the consummation one thing, and the consummation
itself another; we would ask, from what Holy Book, or prophet,
or apostle, or teacher, has he received this doctrine of a
division into three orders? For he understands, as he says,
by the sixth day motion , having taken the term motion from
the monk Evagrius1); by the Sabbath, that Christ will be all
and in all men; and by the first day, that God will be all in all.
He furthermore shows that it is less for man to be united
to Christ than to be in God. He imagined, then, that he could
confirm these three (stages) by the words which Our Lord
spoke to the Pharisees, which it is certain were not a figure ,
an allegory, a parable, or a mystery, but the narration of
an action imagined by the Pharisees, as is shown by reading
them. “The same day there came certain of the Pharisees,
saying unto him, Get thee out and depart hence, for Herod
desireth to kill thee. And He said unto them, Go ye, and
tell that fox , Behold I cast out devils and I perform cures today
and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Nevertheless I must work 2) today and tomorrow, and on
the day following I will go (hence) 3) , for it cannot be tha*
a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem” 4). Now if, according
to his researches , today , the sixth day , be an allegory of
this world , and tomorrow, the Sabbath , a type of rest , and
the third day, the first of the week, a symbol of the con¬
summation; what then comes after the consummation? Is
Our Lord again to be crucified? but by whom? for accord¬
ing to his doctrine even the Jews will have become of one
nature with God.
Now it is thus written, that Our Lord said, after //today
1 ) Ki'vtjtnQ. Evagrius Ponticus was a disciple of Gregory Nazianzen.
2) The expression work instead of walk is in the Peshitta , but not
in the Curetonian Gospels.
8) The Curetonian version reads K'.viK'
4) Luke XIII, 31-83.
38
»niAi AA^o . KllK' KiA-33 A\x.33 kAAA>i Kl33 OxA o i.w330
Ki^JCVl i^ . »}alaLioK' ^33 izA 5aK!i Kinn K4jA.x33 pA
. )olx.iorcl=) r<? rKioao . .JolA^sai ,oA K'ioi k12*.*.i*
Ap^o ^ooaA^osuKo . oYA^.oAxK' ^ocq\.^ Kllou ArKi k'A-.k'
. kA33A\x33 Ki3.x\^. .ixa.i iraKh . .zAA^i caa.i .ixAva*. cep
A^o . -ulx33 Kfcni KioixV^s c ns i33K\i >oA KiV^iiii Aiw
». rdx.Jpc'i oai_3 4x_3A\_x_ii kA\^.x. AaAik'i K&i-wK' >03
»^_*1*ct3 .* Klx-aK'i cn i-olA ca3o_3i_.»iAvi Kl33i >cb A_^o
kA A>0_3^ ^-33 -01330 . KllK' KJ-iK’l ^0_i*».lA>
»
r*l3i_oa_4*-3 oocn ^i-rui i-x.3 ^i Klx-*‘i_& . »
^-33 jjl=)AvX330 kA\oAvK 1^00 O : ^133 aA-33 1 0003 eVx>l
K&VjjK' K'AvrSkO.lA ^OOdA\o\ ^-33 02x30044.13.1 CVD^, . tA^.
T_iAa ^-331 KAvajOUX^ ^1 l-2i . ^0.04jA\X3 >-_\Q0 KLAi
. 02-\ j.x\.x»!33 OK' ^x3031331 1^0 : CfA nd3 01*A\33
». V^-\n-3A Kl3^ 00 1 0 1 03 1 Kl^33 A\ J30^1 01-33^
. A>Kl33 kA 023.x3^ ^—33 13 A 1 . 133^ ^OCT3A>a.A ^-*1 OCT3
Kli^ra 003.1 Kll=)\ ^33 i-3.-\ .*^0-303 nd\c\ 0010103 rdAo
,02*100 00 101023 J4 \3 .1^ PC' .103 A^O . Ol\ ^xVA^n ^.X4JAX33
AoA^o31 ctAo . KlxAfi033O ICUxAs 003 r^A^xX.1 >Ox> . kA^A>
»jA o\\ . XX^.233 kA A> 0313.1 crA >144 A> 003.1 Kll=)\ ^n.io
»13l^.O .K^lKli- nliK' JJA33 KcT3.1 . Kl303 rdY^AA 0133^
» kA.33 A\ X.33 tKAAAv! O cyAo .14*330 K11J330* K&OfloK' rdiK'
A\lx3 VaA03 AtK'.I ^.x\ 03 AAA> Kix-Lx. A^. i.331 .1^ . >'Kl3K'
AK* 02-31 . Kl~Zlx\ . <A r^33.12^0 KAy» 1 0313x33 ^J33 Kl*l002*
>3.101 f*A^.\A> KixlX- rx\cT23l AA733 KA>l33lA> i^.00.1 aIk*
39
and tomorrow and the third day I shall be perfected”, //be¬
cause it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem”:
it is therefore evident that He means , by the consummation ,
that He should be crucified, and that this should take place
in Jerusalem, where also all the prophets had been killed,
and likewise He also was to be crucified there. He said that
He would be perfected through the cross, in order to fulfil
what is said: //By the cross which consummates” *) ; and
this other: //The hour is come that the Son of Man should
be glorified” 1 2), and also: „When ye have lifted up the Son
of Man, then shall ye know that I do nothing of myself”3).
Now the Pharisees , burning with envy because they saw
that Our Lord taught and performed miracles and was glo¬
rified of all men, wished to expel him from among them
unto some other place, that they should not be thus vexed.
But, as praise from all men was given to him, they thought
lo intimidate and terrify him, and said: //Get thee out and
depart hence, for Herod desireth to kill thee”. But He said
unto them that except He were willing He would not die,
and that neither Herod nor they would be able to kill him
except at the time He chose. Therefore, when He derides
Herod and calls him fox, He indicates that he is but con¬
temptible and despicable, and unable to kill Him before the
time at which He has delermined to die: //Go ye and tell
that fox, Behold I cast out devils and perform cures today and
tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected”. He hereby
indicates the three years which He passed among the Jews ,
from His baptism to His crucifixion, in which He also teaches
that He worked miracles 5 for in the thirty years which preceded
1) There seems to be no such expression in Scripture.
2) John XII, 23.
3) From John VIII, 28.
PC&PC' Kl\o . jjifloK'.i K&CU°A.*73 tkA . rKdu.lO.ai^a
• •
^ca*iv»K\i ^.Ax. A\AA> liia iaaK' tKiAk' . >cu> jixza
\\r^ rd^.=j octd.i r<li=jv= • PC'iA A\.i Kl^acuo vu.'sno rrlusocu
• •
rd^s? 3 kA.i : rKL».iOtfu ^.aa .riAA^aa ^aaA>o . ^Ax-ioreA
. AoK' rC'.ioa As^o . '*Ax-iar<' i-n_\ .%_ar<la rtLx-a-i.i
» ^Lrtl\ Avaa^io K'.xzxi AvAA^o . ^lAx-ior^ >A ^Ax.ioK'.i
» : **uiis axikaA A\xra^. ^-xi_3\ rxLzas. . cnA>cuA
» t<Ao . oixSiv^ b\x*ib\ aix^oi^ KixiSk ptfiAa^JlAvi r^liV^K'
»t<!jiaar<' . KLa%*> ^02kAvx=> _a.:A jis&ixaa rc'cn . ^oAvnp
lS
/^avaarK&i rdrafcv.*] rK&r^.i r<lra.T^- >aiovuA> kA.i ^aA
tAca=j l^cn Awns' ^rS- .»rsl*i»3s oa»lx= Kars's c\cn v^ia
Aup£iAA^;i ^q.%^3 ok' : rKtoa^cA^ op^kAucu*^ ok' iTaarc&K'i
^oAur^ oin . ,V-u^>r<' ooA.f ^A*r<la .^..laaa AurtLaiaai OK'
.tx-=3.i AA^aa . K'.i.T-j *A aK ^OAai^. cun.o?o . oJLxaAtrK'o
.* K'JxniTQo cnA\x^.ii\\ iafib.i ^aawaa rKiYaa AAA^ ^Aoa
. r^nxra.Txj.lCN K^nx-io K'ixaai^-.i k4\\4x rK'iaO.ii rc^LuoAo
rdxxa tKlaiA-^ ,o3oA\*r<':i i_.uu_aao iaaK' )aA kLl.530-*
p^ooh* ,03 . k'JAAvi rdaacxA rcAsBAuu.i ,030 . K&oirtlwo
KU&xX^aa ^q.VsAa Kboili ,030 . A_2k..3 A*k K'oiApC'
.* K'iu.io.ai^jaa ^003 KiA Ax^.Vw.i och v^K' . kAu ix.
K'.ioa . niUxxxaa t-iAa^do A_^.i ,cn KfccAaa.i
rtAo .Kioos yaxsn r< Ao rtfivaOTi^ra ^:vaa . fKiooa rcAvnxrj
jlAlX.PC' r<Ao . ilj£ZJO T4J tkAo . K1auX^3 A-^K'O T_ii=3^>r</
vryK'.lO Tx^ rAo3 . kA_“1jj1 cni.’VMOK'o K&CCai caA^\o.x.
u
His baptism it is not written that He gave any instruction
or manifested any miracle. But He says that after three
years, which are today, tomorrow and the third day, at the
time that He chooses He will go up to Jerusalem, and there
will be crucified by the Jews, //for it cannot be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem”. And to this He adds: // 0
Jerusalem , Jerusalem , that killest the prophets and stonest
them which are sent unto thee; how often would I have
gathered thy children together as a hen doth gather her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your
house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you , Ye
shall not see me until the day come when ye shall say,
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” l).
Therefore, whether or no there he in these words a symbol
or type or anything which allegorically and mystically teaches
the things which appear unto this man , read ye and consider
and decide among yourselves: for by these three words he
sustains, as he imagines, his vain opinion, and the change
of the three dispensations of the sixth, the seventh and the
first days of the week. For he calls today and tomorrow
(respectively) the evil world and liberty, and the being per¬
fected on the third day is , that God will be all in all. All
being in Christ on the seventh day (Sabbath) — as if they
were not so already by baptism — he believes to indicate
that Christ is all and in all men. If this be on the seventh
day then nothing took place on the sixth, and Christ was
not made flesh and born, and did not suffer and die , neither
was the power of death and the reign of corruption destroyed.
1) Matthew XXIII, 37—39; Luke XIII, 34—35. K&rdl.i ,
» the day come”, is not found in the Peshitta , but in the Curetonian
version : otherwise the Peshitta for Luke XIII is followed except .1
= vyK' and rtlxiA for ; rCi’VSflK' = ptliK'
42
K4ir)oin»r3 Kbcoi . 003 rc^juLxnai K&omo r<f^ A i^ra
__S
•n.T-^3 A_n Kbni . ijnsKb Kln.r> Arc'n rtlX-xK* . T-^.<Vi-fl0K'
^_r<b . k!xx=d KlnnVn. Aui-D^K* Kl3cn ^nsi rclicn . ^qlVAix.k'
Kctj.! ,cn ixra : KlxAjraox- Kboa.i J^-Ik* K&irsoinra
. Klico-A pclrLXJsJvwA ^_x.i ocn : ^oA-XJra jaxzn An
A»no3 ^ji_ra . An Axook' ^aoi^i rtfSAns AzrnoV AukLxA-\^
. rc&OTrtiO Klxx3.! Klx^Vox- K'x.LO . iixrao Tx» K'Jirsoin.ra
^A^Vox. ^K'^Aeni *xl^- inn-Kto . K'irxn o^r> Kbcra K<Knxr3 c\
cv\=3 ,003 ^JTxjjnf.l ^.xA CT3 K'&XX^.xA ^K' i_n.Q0O . Kl.V-n.X3l
oaYxi .1x3 , 0.3x0 . K'iura Avxrs ^3 yxo Klmxr3i.xx.no . Aoxx.
cars &\.xAi oot rAvixj KlraVn-i Klioz-o . T-xAm K&xraxia
. orAn K'n.xrj.ix* kAk* . vsok' K^icni v^K' Klnxrj.ixsO K'iinr.
.^AKlnoi KlA o : ixxTTiV Kb 03 .n.ix kA 1X Axncn ^.xVcars
.A-»0 . K'i-^.flb ca\ ocn (?) <V\oct3 . ^xn*.»iii ^cucn ^rrj Klrp^.
mnio . KlXiiia Klrsix’n M KlAo . Kin* io? ,030rix.Ox3 ^3
KlAAra.ro ixr Kln.x-010 K&oVnoo kAjtoi K'At.Tx* kIxAo*
Kl^ax-i redxJY-sa kiAakIi i_x„,\^ octj . k'ioY^x.o Ktoxn^
Klxxxnx.ra K'xovwivr^ in ,^t73^.K AxSki.^ KlraxcaV
T_n . Kll03 KlV-OkP^ 1^3 K* ix^ Kl\ .,0x3 01X^3 00x00103.1
KliLiK' ,<V\oA oA>k!i . ,030'mxQo.i ^^oca-X-ra Kln.*T* .n_^
An. oA .n*A\ni axxnx.K'o cnivAxA oYn.i . oir^Ko K'ij/ix.
,03o\.12^1 ^330 . K'&toAuKll 003 KlXxn ira ^.xn An.! . KAxCoK*
Ax3! . OxA^io KV<lx_^Oo KlxVwA .2wT*4\K'o : KISl.IO^V v^oo
•:• rdraivnra &v>Kx^xj£? 3 ca3i»o . k'Aiqok' oaroxiK'o
43
For these and like things were accomplished by the cru¬
cifixion and death of Christ , which took place on the sixth
day; who also cried out and said: //All is finished”. This
is what this man calls the evil world. Furthermore, as
Our Lord taught that the consummation was on the sixth
day , because He then fulfilled all things , this man by defin¬
ing it to be on the first day of the week openly teaches
contrary to the word of Our Lord. Our Lord therefore on
the sixth day suffered and died and destroyed the dominion
of suffering and of death ; on the seventh day He was in
the grave, and put an end also to the power of corruption,
and visited the souls held captive in Sheol. And on the
first day of the week He rose from the dead , and proved
by His own resurrection that of all mankind, and the begin¬
ning of a new world in which there is no seventh and first
day of the week, as this man says, but it is all first day.
But he (Bar Sudaili) not being able to see these things him¬
self, nor willing to learn them from those who were able,
wrote this book in which he consulted his own vain thoughts
and not the Holy Scriptures, and constructed a new doctrine
full of wickedness and impiety, in an insipid and foolish
language. For although he is not even able to command a
language worthy of writing, still, being desirous of making
a display, he came forward as an inventor of heresies. I
will not, furthermore, omit the following fact, although it
is apparent from his writings. There came unto me trust¬
worthy men who said that on entering his cell they found
written by him on the wall : |// All nature is consubstantial
with the Divine Essence”; and on account of their strongly
accusing him of blasphemy, and it becoming known to many
monks who murmured at it , he was afraid and removed it
from the wall; but secretly put it into his writings.
44
rd&o ruaK'.i rc'ina K l*.ioca» ^*1 .vwA
K&U2Q rt'.tcn . cnJ^cA »tdA\.*c\ A\rd . 'poniard Avxs.i ^Aon
A^ / rdi^J> r<Ac\ . Ax*.iA> rd\ . cyA itaK'i >so.td CU<^\
.sAx* ,cno J\*rd ^acrciar^ vyAjj.i . rd^a.i3\ &T50K'A\J573.l
b\xxSi\*xx zn rd^ncv^ rdj'iwrd /vr^iu.ia ctA TSPrdi.i
r<Lacn AA^tj ct2^12w cv.x-i.1.1 rdicipd rdLrivrC' Ar^ . A^cv irp^,
rdi-cD.i j.-xAxK' : rdrd.x_^a> rd.i_3\ caJSiJS^ CNOcn.i pd:
AA^a.i ^aiCTD ►’SQ.TO otor^ . rdx^aA^lr^.l rd’icXfkra ^GonxAurd'
rdAa.i A >V-«A\rd rdA , rd^.ia\j rdA\rdlx-^£0 ^c\cn A\c\ix^.x-
v^K' *^C^A>cA .sAx^ Ax^cn awrd . pdA^-^rPlr:
^Acn.i cva^x . ,ct3cva.ic0^ rdsAiii _asA ttx..i ord : AxsAx.i
^ rdAuHx.i ^x\ctA AxxrdTxAuo . ^^OrscrixAu r<A T_ird\
: rdA\cvx.^ic\ k&cA^xx.^ AvA-:x. rdA.i . r<lixin=3
AsA ix^ rtlAo . *Jia24jLi rd-x.lA ^w.^1- rd.TxSw ^so.i ^Acn
rdAvJLbc\A> )a*T-i . on_A .3l*A\^.i rdJSfl vyjK'.i rd_s^c\:v>
rdiiwK' pa^-O PC&r<lx-^QD rdA\c\.jj^3 .lA^i rtlA.i . rd_jjic\rd'
ak' c\=joAi^c\ . K^i.a.jj ina) Cop .Bird ^.x\.£xio ^.An A\ Av^tt.i
rdli^Acu Ai*-i rd^.m^ ^73 rdAxi.i . ^j(\;A i &.L ^ _ rd ctA
ocb . rdx».Too rdLi^i.iAiip rdAa ncix-flawo rd.1 A_Ap3 Ara rdA
Tx^ TJL-* . rd.ixSaAAl caA Kbcni.i rdA Ax^.i^. Oco.l
ndA pa-flo .T-A T ^xActs . ntiiaAv-^ rdAxpdx-^a? rdAv»C\.wA\
pd-1 rd . fZaxnZn caAx* rdXxA .1 Vx.^ \nsp . ^ctAxaj ja^JL rd
cn.Tj»AA\ T_lrd *x=) pva cnA AxiAx^.i rdilrd .icn_^ V-x-^
OaA An.ai- oraxxx*^ Aid,! rd.i*rd ndA>i\rd . ^ocniard crt5?ix.l
45
They related before me that to a certain Jew, who was
by the sepulchre ot‘ the Patriarchs of the house of Abraham,
he said this word, coming up and sitting by him: //Fear
not, neither be concerned that thou art called crucifier, for
thy lot is with Abraham:” instead of saying //thy por¬
tion”. Concerning various other blasphemies which he raved
and uttered, other men, who disputed with him on this
subject and were with him for a long time , but are now in
the province of Antioch , have spoken to us , but on ac¬
count of the extreme shamefulness of these blasphemies it
has seemed to me not suitable that they should be stated
in this letter.
If therefore he has either written unto you, as I have
learned, or has sent unto you his blasphemous books, be
careful lest they fall into any person’s hands and especially into
those of nuns dwelling within church-precincts, lest they be
led astray through the simplicity and weakness natural to
women. For the wise must all , as is written, //take up
the stumbling-block out of the way”1), lest he receive many
wounds and become the companion of many others who
stumble and fall 2).
Write also to him , if it seem proper to you , that he cease
from his blasphemies on an ineffable, pure, incomprehensible
and holy doctrine. Concerning which I do not know that he
has yet a single disciple, for, of the many arguments which
he has collected from the Scriptures, when he applies them,
he does not discover the (real) force, but he imagines that
they support his view.
I remember that I once wrote to him a letter by means
of one of his disciples, Abraham by name; a copy of which
also I now send unto you. At that time I did not well know
1) Isaiah LVII, 14.
2) Cf. Isaiah VIII, 15.
46
cnl^ Klicni Kilrat c\crira Auocn kA ia . ndi-co
A_lA-di cn-1*.! iCV-wlra KlnJLCV^.13! / Ai_^ji jj’TJirtpC'
cnr^i liw. ^tdAv^cn 100=3 Avx.=o Ar^.i Kl^re' . K'iciiovso
A^Auaaii Klicn A^3CO*A>r<' icuAs colia . KiiGVx>a Kllil.^
. CV—iK' rC'in KlrsAi^A ^Kll k!AaCC' . KLra AvsA AurcAuAisj
'i.ix.ii ^*1 »cb . Klsoljji cnix^ ool»i rdn.X-a°Ao . kIsiIm
rcA^xx£>.=3 CU^A^ioli v^K' . ^ClA .raoiv^i AK' phalli p£x.cn
>cnic\r£=3 AK'.l . ^ocol TSttK'l ix\^ Ai^JSsOi. . ooi&AtK'^SoAM
KlSO.i^. . jazdAulK' »^£0 ^lio AK' =3oA>o . ooialcL* AapAiK*
A\i^-1 Klicn KAti^Klra ^=oA>i KL*H*1 ^3 KlxarC' cv^.^^.1
Al^.A\=0 >^*7l CUw.T»C\ /COjjLAJg. ^OiA Aill, Klx.cn! . col
}o.Vzo . >l*.i filers KA>T\rdb ^oA\s.\gn Ax^co p£=o . *l=o
r<Ac\ co=3 arel^a . cnAuxA cirsaAi^ kAoi ^oAuk' ^Li*i
rd^nfla^ rdl KliK' . Aurdto kAk* AvL-xJSn uxL
kAAIiL kA cAk' .* cnAAl^zo ocvAi^kIi Aug co .t*Au*. ^oli-icNK'i
rd^oiflo coA ^ix^A>c\A\r=o Kill >cog / r<A>cu.^a*co AJ^zoi
rcAv*io^.\ oAo . Klaco kA^-sj Axis ix_^ evA . kA\2*-^o=3
kAigcuAg KtxVjAg ix^ KLnlsA .^*00=3 A^asyji rx\cn jjiiK'
>1=3 ^gcoxAukIi . rds-in^.l rc^iAo r^iajacxaAo rd=3inAc\
jlAi^Av^sg . Kt\oo=ol ^.i*Ai^ ^*1 cucn . t=oK rc'oolrc'i p£ liA
. Klv-^cn t.^ok'g . .njaaia Kli-^cn gcoi . rda’ixjnA cox^.a.1
^ — . •
*=3gA>G . Kllx=k lx> rduGlG Ki=JO KlrsK' ^COgAuKIi VyxKll
. . \
A.T-^ja . coA^gAukIi ndix^ i=3 neb co kAOlsoi coi-^^ ak*
Kli-ikcn coA\_^i_* rcA ^jso kA\_1_=o nelicn A>oA AK' ^»i
47
that he had dared to imagine such blasphemies, for I had
only met with his commentaries on a few of the Psalms,
in which he also glorifies himself and ascribes to himself
revelations and visions , and (says) that to him alone is it
given to understand the Scriptures correctly. In them he
also calls the Scriptures dreams , and his commentaries the
interpretation of dreams.
Afterwards he craftily devised to send his books to you
and to write to you , in order to deceive the simple people
there (at Jerusalem); for I have heard that he says to them,
that even in Edessa is his heresy received , and is furthermore
much praised by us, — until some of the monks there hap¬
pened upon the letter which I had written , of which I now
send you a copy, and found that (on the contrary) he was
strongly censured by me. When therefore you shall have
received these letters of mine, that which you know to be
just write unto him, and reprove him, and that not feebly
but forcibly. I myself would write to the bishop of Jeru¬
salem l) respecting him , were it not for differences concern¬
ing the faith , and that the fact of our not being of the same
communion is a middle wall (of partition) between us 2).
For this man has sinned not a little, and the offences which
he has committed are not small; for he says that dogs, pigs,
serpents, scorpions, mice, and other reptiles of the earth, are
consubstantial with God: that is will become so. He also strives
to persuade others to believe likewise, and says thus: //As
the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of one nature,
and as the body of the Word is consubstantial with his
divinity”, through ignorance he also blasphemes concerning
this part (of Church doctrine), adding, //all creation also will
1) Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
2) Ephesians II, 14.
48
KbcnAvi rc'.-uA^. r^&uirj A* . iiiarc'a
. KjjLA-Vr-a c\.i3 \ c\ . KlAcx^aa rdt-Twa . k$>c\ ctAk'i
rd2TnjLOa^3C\ .rAaivaa . K'.lcafioa Klao.iio
^c\cti_Ya . K'iv^-^iK' v-ixA-^o
. K'crAre' ^n.2w rdlx^ :u> ^Ocbo ri^lu^\I5]
• A\— > Cfi — \ CNCT3 r£~\ci
Jt-o ^ . i
!T
»4i_
become consubstantial with the Divine nature’’ : and magi¬
cians and murderers, crucifiers and apostles, persecutors and
martyrs , adulterers and virgins , the chaste and those who
satisfy their lusts, all, he says, will be changed and become
consubstantial with God, and there will be no one who shall
excel, neither any one who shall be lacking l)m
1) It seems either that at this point a sheet of the MS. was lost before
it was bound, or that the MS. from which this copy was made was a
defective one.
49
Y.
THE PHILOSOPHIC SYSTEM OF BAR SUDA1L1.
The letter of Jacob of Sarug was evidently written at a
period when Bar Sudaili had not yet thrown off the mask
entirely: it makes no mention of pantheistic doctrines, but
simply upholds the church doctrine of the eternity of punish¬
ment against Bar Sudaili’s theory of its temporal duration.
In doing so he falls , Jacob of Takrit (XIII century) remarks *),
into the error of the Semi-Pelagians, that the just received
eternal bliss because God foreknew that they would always
have continued in righteousness. This view cannot be cor¬
rectly said to be that of the Semi-Pelagians, although it
resembles it in the cooperation of the two elements of grace
and good works.
Philoxenos has confined himself, in his letter, to treating
in general terms of one part only of Bar Sudaili’s system ,
that which seemed to him most pernicious, his pantheism and
his doctrine of salvation. His system was openly pantheistic,
or, to speak more philosophically, Pan-nihilistic ; for, accor¬
ding to him , all nature even to the lowest forms of animal
1) The passage is in his »Book of Treasures”
(written in 1231), part III, ch. 39: cf. Assein. B. 0., T. II, p. 240; and
Abbeloos, S. Jacques de Sarug, p. 125.
Frothingham, Bar Sudaili.
4
50
creation, being simply an emanation from the Divinity-Chaos l) ,
finally returns to it; and, when the consummation has taken
place, God himself passes away and everything is swallowed
up in the indefinite chaos which he conceives to be the first
principle and the end of being, and which admits of no
distinction. Let us examine the salient features to be no¬
ticed in Philoxenos’ letter, and compare them with the doc¬
trines of the Book of Hierotheos as they are disclosed in
the summary given further on. In the first place, we read
that Bar Sudaili //openly assimilates the creation to God and
teaches that it is necessary for everything to become like
him”2): his formula was, » All nature is consubstantial with
the Divinity” 3). Secondly, there are three periods of existence :
1. the present world, which is evil, and to which belongs
motion: 2. during this period all existence is brought into
complete union with Christ who »is all and in all men”;
this is the period of rest and liberty: 3. finally, all nature
becomes of the same nature with the universal essence 4).
This is the consummation or the confusion of all things,
when distinction disappears , not only between God and
Nature, but between the persons of the Godhead itself5);
God, as personality, passes away, and there is no longer
Father, Son, and Spirit. Even the devils are finally redeemed,
and included in the general indistinction and confusion6). This
doctrine of universal redemption and return into the divine
nature — the dnozaraGTaotg — was, as is well known,
the common doctrine of the great Alexandrian and Antio¬
chene schools. Both Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia , like
1) His first principle is identical with the ®eoip%foi or source of divi¬
nity of Pseudo-Dionysios.
2) P. 28. . 3) P. 42.
5) P. 34. 6) P. 32.
4) P. 32 seq.
51
Bar Sudaili , assign three periods to rational existence: the
present; that when all existence is united in Christ; and
the final absorption or ccnoxaTctoTaoig \ the only difference
being that with Theodore this was final , whereas with Ori-
gen this process was continually repeated. The same doctrine
was taught by Gregory of Nyssa on the one hand and Dio-
doros of Tarsos on the other.
The Book of Hierotheos takes precisely the same stand¬
point. In it, the emanation from the Good comprehends all
the grades of nature down to the lowest , including also the
fallen evil spirits1). The redemption of the hell-sphere and
of Satan is taught in detail: we even see, from the commen¬
tary of Theodosios, that this point in the Book of Hierotheos
had excited much comment and reprobation among theolo¬
gians2), and that it was considered by them, as by Philox-
1) See p. 110. 2) Comm, on Book IV, c-h. 17, which is entitled
K'kI^qo . A.2*. '>Ontbe repentance of those below”.
K&.l^za k'Au.mkS.I cvoon.t Klx iLlra f.-'zn \
coC\K'<^\T*K' Kll°Am Klion OTHGo . KbArcb
K&c\.:a..»^\ r<A\CV.Hii\ A^. Klion ^ordA^nl
Kb kL£. a K'Axa.a..^ AA^n Kb on KlA : ■i.snK' KbKlx-.i
Kb on xrtLu rd.icn vs^Kba k1x_m kA-^k' . i-^nK' ^xAon
k'Axvi^kA ^cvon^\Y*o K'i.aL^-.i Klxilia A\^o kAk' . k^i^Aso
Klxlxlrai K&cxra i*b\ AA^nn KiA^o Kl^»:w rcbonc\ . KbKLjL.i
Acxjlx. ^a>Kb K^^cnrai >>vmKb ,cn . v'SOK'
KLICVAIK' . » <A .1 KilCV^lK' K'ixX i*C\ K'v^V^.l
! kIxIjlIjA .1 K'i.o KbKixA » Now many among the mystical
divines of the church of God have considered that Hierotheos when he
wrote this chapter »on the repentance of those below” meant the rcpent-
i
I
52
enos , a dangerous point, for Theodosios vainly endeavors to
clear Hierotheos from the charge. This fact itself is of impor¬
tance from its connection with the criticisms of Philoxenos
on Bar Sudaili.
The three periods which Philoxenos finds in Bar Sudaili
clearly appear in Hierotheos, not only as world-periods but
as phases of the development of individual souls. The first
or natural condition is that during which the mind aspires
with motion towards the first principle, but still possesses
evil in itself. The second takes place when the mind or
rational nature, through its rise, becomes identified with
Christ and goes through its long experience and purification
before reaching the final consummation , experience during
which it performs all the acts of Christ and is Christ him¬
self; for Christ is nothing but the Universal Mind. The
third state is when all nature is completely absorbed into
the original chaos from which all originally sprang, even
God himself: in this absorption, Father, Son, and Spirit
disappear, and all distinction vanishes l).
Any further details at this point seem unnecessary; a
reading of the summary of the Book will show even more
clearly the complete identity of Bar Sudani's doctrine, so far
as it is stated by Philoxenos, with that of the Book of
Hierotheos. If the analogy went only so far as to cover
what is, so to speak ? the common ground of pantheistic
mysticism , there would be nothing remarkable or conclusive
in such a coincidence. What would seem, however, to be
a strong argument for the identity of the two writers, —
ance of demons. But our teacher did not say these things of the repent¬
ance of demons , nor had he any such thing in mind : on the contrary it
was of those men whose evil had led them into the abode of demons.
This fact is clear and evident, that he spoke of the repentance of men,
from his saying,” etc. 1) See summary of Book of Hierotheos.
besides the three world-periods , — is the form of doctrine
found in both on the //consummation”: what other mystic
writer had ever dared to reach such a depth of logical
blasphemy as to assert in so many words that '/the Father,
Son, and Spirit”, that God, will cease to exist? This is, of
course , but the logical consequence of the Pseudo-Dionysian
doctrine of an emanated Trinity, for, as Origen says, //as the
beginning is, so must the end be”; but nowhere in these
writings, any more than in those of the Alexandrian and
Antiochene doctors who teach the dnoxardaraaig , is such
a consequence expressed. Many striking personal similarities
between Bar Sudaili and Pseudo-Hierotheos are evident at
first sight: both lay claim to direct divine revelations; both
make extensive use of Scripture for the support of their
theories. It remains for us to see whether the Dionysian frag¬
ments of Hierotheos are in accord with what has been de¬
duced. As it would be out of place to give here their full
text, which would have to be compared with passages of
the Book of Hierotheos, a few words of description will he
sufficient. The extract from the Elements of Theology *) is a
definition of the nature of Christ. The divinity of Jesus (rov
3Ir)6ov Oeorrjs) is the all-including cause, above intelligence ,
life , and substance. It maintains the harmony of the parts
and the whole , being above both the parts and the whole.
Between this conception and that of Christ as the universal
essence and the union of all things , the harmony is evident.
The extract given in Eccles. Hier. (ch. II, 1) shows that
i/the first motion of the mind towards the divine is the love
of God and the fragments from the Erotic hymns s) treat
of love as a unitive force moving all beings // from the Good
1) Divine Names, ch. II, 10.
2) Divine Names, ch. IV, 15 — 17.
54
down to the last of beings and from the last of beings up
to the Good n . There are many corresponding passages in
Hierotheos : he describes the motion of glorifying and loving,
as that which belongs to distinct and separate existence, as
the supplication of those who have fallen. //All rational essences
glorify and love the essence from which they were separated//.
It seems at first difficult to explain why Philoxenos pours
such fierce invectives on Bar Sudaili , and stigmatizes his
doctrines as unheard of, and worse than Judaism or Hea¬
thenism. Although they were expressed in bold language by
Bar Sudaili, yet, besides being in accord with the prevailing
spirit of East-Syrian and Egyptian monasticism , how many
famous teachers and doctors of the church had supported the
same doctrine! While it is presented in different forms by
Sabellios !) , Marcellus of Ankyra1 2), etc., it is upheld by the
whole Alexandrian School, by Clement, Origen, and Didy-
mos , by Gregory Nazianzen 3) and Gregory of Nyssa , by
Nemesios , Synesios, and others , and later by the School of
Antioch , headed by Diodoros of Tarsos and Theodore of
Mopsuestia. Among the East-Syrians even S. Ephraem can
hardly be cleared from the stain of a moderate mystical
pantheism. If none of these theologians used the same freedom
of language as Bar Sudaili, on approaching the most sacred
precincts of the Christian faith, Philoxenos must have been
too subtle a theologian not to have seen beyond their reti¬
cences. The severity shown to Stephen cannot then be ex¬
plained from the principles of his thought, but from the
freedom of his language , which was such as to throw oblo-
1) See Neander, I, pp. 598 and 600.
2) Adversus Marc.: see Dorner, I. 2, p. 282.
3) E. g. liis hymn published in notes to Dionysios (Op. orn.ed. Migne,
I. p. 606).
quy on the whole mystical school and to draw upon it the
reprobation of ecclesiastical authority. Another explanation,
the plausibility of which may appear further on , would he
Bar Sudaili’s connection with the beginning* of the well-
known Origenistic revival in the first part of the VI century.
56
VI.
The biographical information concerning Bar Sudaili at our
disposal is very meagre. Philoxenos tells us that he was a
native of Edessa and a or scribe , and Jacob of Sarug
shows him to have been a monk of considerable repute for
sanctity and good works; in fact, the terms of praise which
he bestows on Bar Sudaili indicate that, until then, the latter
enjoyed the favor of the Monophysite party, though already
he had not only begun to show his anti-christian sentiments
more openly, but was also cherishing ambitious aims. In all
probability Bar Sudaili passed a portion of his early career
in Egypt, for Philoxenos mentions his having followed for
some time the leadership of John the Egyptian. If his iden¬
tity with Pseudo-Hierotheos be granted, there would be some
interesting traces of this early part of his life. Three dog¬
matic extracts passing under the name of Hierotheos are
preserved, in either Arabic or Ethiopic versions; the originals
seem to have been in Coptic. Two of these appear in the
well-known Fides Patrum , a work compiled probably in
1) The Arabic version is found in the Vatican (Arabic Cod. 101 ff. 11
and 12), in Florence (Medic. Palat. Library C.LX1X) and in the Viet.
Emanuel Lib. at Rome. The Ethiopic text is preserved in the Brit. Mus.
Ethiopic Cod. 14 Add. 16,219 f. 7 — 8, and in the Library of the Univ.
of Tiibingen.
57
the XI cent. : a Latin version of them was given by Mai in
tome III of his Spicilegium Romanum (p. 704) ') , but both
the Arabic and Ethiopic texts have remained inedited. These
fragments , which contain declarations concerning the nature
of Christ, are somewhat colorless, although perceptibly Mo-
nophysite 1 2). Of more interest is a confession of faith, con¬
tained in an Arabic MS. of the councils (Arab. Vatic. 409
f. 397), which seems not to have been noticed by Mai. Here
a strong pantheistic and mystical tinge is added to its Mo-
nophysitism , and many expressions remind us of Bar Sudaili,
especially those in which the all-containing nature of the
thearchy is taught3).
It appears clearly from the language of these fragments
that they were written at a time when the Monophysite
controversy was at its height; and the probabilities are in
favor of their having been written by Bar Sudaili. The first
two show him to have been at first a prudent but evident
Monophysite, and the last must have been produced some¬
what later, when his creed had become more mystical. There
are no traces of them in Syriac , and they must without any
doubt be referred to a residence in Egypt. It was in Edessa
however that he began to show his personal views: it is
probable that he was still in that city when Jacob of Sarug
adressedto him the present letter. Then also Philoxenos may have
written to him the previous letter which he refers to , and
the copy of which he enclosed4). Soon after, in all proba¬
bility from the opposition he met with in his native city,
1) Mai published it without pledging himself in any way, »nullum in-
terponens de iis judicium”.
2) Compare their phraseology with that of Jacob of Sarug, e. g. in his
letter to the monks of Bassus.
3) I intend to publish the text of these documents with that of the
Book of Hierotheos. 4) See pp. 44 — 47.
58
Bar Sudaili was obliged to leave Edessa and betake himself
to Palestine, where the greater freedom of thought allowed
was abundantly used by the Origenistic monks, who were
growing numerous and bold. At or near Jerusalem he entered
a monastery, as we see from the letter of Philoxenos: that
he was ever an abbot seems to be a gratuitous assumption
on the part of Neander, Gfrorer , and those who have copied
the assertion from them. We have no record of his being
expelled from this monastery, as some were, in consequence
of his scandalously pantheistic views, but there can be no
doubt that they became well-known, not only from his writ¬
ings , but also from the words he wrote on the wall of his
cell, „A11 nature is consubstantial with the Divinity”. About
the same time we hear of the expulsion , for Origenistic views,
of four monks from the new Laura of S. Saba , with the
consent of the archbishop Elias 2) , to whom also Philoxenos,
in his letter, speaks of appealing: it would not therefore have
been surprising if Bar Sudaili had been treated in the same
manner. The period of his residence in Jerusalem is the only
part of his career which may be dated with approximate
certainty, between the years 4-94 and 512, from the con¬
cordance of dates between Jacob of Sarug (b. 454, d. 522) ,
Philoxenos (485 — 518) , and Elias of Jerusalem (494 — 513).
As Philoxenos refers to the impossibility of his communica¬
ting with the Patriarch of Jerusalem on account of their divis¬
ion in faith , we are inclined to narrow the period at which
his letter was written to between 509 and 512, when the
contest between the two parties was at its height. Another
chronological indication might be found in the co ,
1) Cyrillus Scy thopolita , Vita S. Sabae.
59
^Confession of faith”, of Philoxenos *) , if the period at which
it was written could he exactly determined; for in the ana¬
thema at the close he enumerates i=j „the
impious Bar Sudaili”. This confession may have been drawn
up at the synod of Sidon , held in 512 — 513, of which
Philoxenos was the prime mover. In the profession of faith 1 2)
demanded, among the Jacobites, of priests and deacons on
their receiving' orders, we also read the anathematism of Bar
Sudaili and his followers. Stephen had evidently become a
man of importance and influence.
Bar cEhraia , in his Ecclesiastical History3), makes Bar
Sudaili flourish at Edessa under the Antiochene patriarch
Sergios, the successor of Severos, about 542. This is at
variance with all our other evidence , and is certainly an
error; for Stephen had already left Edessa, as we have
seen , during the first years of the century , and his career
could hardly have lasted until the middle of it.
It would be of great interest to know from what source
1) Brit. Mus. Add. 17216: cf. Wright’s Cat., II, 533. Cod. Syr. Vat.
CLIX , f. 83 , v. j.m=5l
k£u4xAx. yL*cn AnocA
: K'icv.nCN : r<Ln*ori.*C\ . . KlwcaCVX.
jx-.qK'cn : _ i_l i r<LV_».io^ vao oooKl^r^'.i ^ — 1
.jlo :
2) Cod. Syr. Vat. XLIX, f. 58. It anathematizes rdl °A^oa r^\ r\
cq\ Kbco ^cu cn\c\ . r^.l C\^ .
rAon Klli-.uPC' c\r<? . 3C\_* ^cn_\r<b
^i.i\ .uio k'cyAk'A ^kL°h
3) Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 215. Cf. Assem. B. 0., T. II, p. 327.
60
Bar Sudaili derived a part at least of his doctrines. On this
point we find an interesting fact noted by Philoxenos in these
words: „He desired. ... to originate, heresies himself also ,
like John the Egyptian , whom for a short time he even
followed111). His master then, before lie came forward as
an original thinker, was a John of Egypt. At this period the
monophysite monk John II (509 — 517) was Patriarch of
Alexandria; but as his relations with Severos of Antioch and
the Syrian Monophysites were intimate, it is hardly possible
that Philoxenos should have referred to him. Bar cEbraia in¬
cludes a John of Egypt in his enumeration of the Monophy¬
sites who flourished under Sergios of Antioch 2) ; but I have
not met with any other notice which could with safety be
referred to him. The John of Alexandria spoken of in Zacha-
rias Rhetor as a heretic and falsifier of writings is, in all
probability , another and an earlier writer 3). In no case could
we identify this John with the Syrian John of Egypt, bishop
of cv^ox^k', whose life is given by John of Asia4); for,
besides the fact that he flourished at a slightly later period ,
had he held the opinions which a master of Bar Sudaili must
have had and which Philoxenos indicates , John of Asia , be¬
longing to the same party as Philoxenos , would never have
enumerated him among his saintly personages. It is hardly
necessary , however , to question the opinions of this master
of Bar Sudaili: the mystical pantheism of the monks of Egypt
and Syria from the IY to the VI century , as well as the
intimate relations between the two countries, are facts too
well-known to require proof. In both there flourished every
degree of pantheism and pan-nihilism , from the gross and
1) See pp. 32 — 3. 2) Assemani B. 0., T. II, p. 327.
3) Land, Anecdota Syriaca, T. II, p. 177.
4) Land, op. cit. T. Ill, p. 130.
61
material form of the Euchites to the spiritualized forms of
the kabbalistic, Neo-platonic and Origenistic sects. Late re¬
searches tend to show that much of this was engrafted from
the old Egyptian sects, with slight transformations required
by the new dispensation. How much of this earlier form was
embodied in the so-called Hermetic books it is difficult to
determine, as they seem to be the work of such different
periods.
Stephen bar Sudaili was undoubtedly in many points a
follower of Origen and the Alexandrian school, but his thought
was dominated by gnostico-kabbalistic elements. Having boldly
proclaimed his doctrines , he sought to propagate them by
numerous writings. Philoxenos shows him to have been a
learned man , much devoted to the study of Scripture , which
he interpreted in a kabbalistic manner, carrying probably to
excess the mania for this kind of exegesis , which was in
vogue among the followers and imitators of Origen ; although
it did not originate with the latter, but is found even more
elaborated in the writings of Philo.
Although Philoxenos speaks of letters , commentaries , books ,
and other writings of Bar Sudaili , he gives details only
regarding an early one , the first which came into his hands ,
a commentary on the Psalms. In it Stephen claimed to have
direct revelations and to be an inspired man, to whom alone
was revealed the true sense of Scripture : he called them
dreams and his commentaries on them the interpretations of
dreams. Philoxenos indicates that in this work Bar Sudaili
had not yet developed his pantheism. The question naturally
arises, was he acquainted with the Book of Hierotheos and
did he make use of it in his criticisms? It seems as if
this were not the case: otherwise the language of Philoxenos
would have been entirely different. As it is, the phraseology
62
shows that he had other sources of information. He refers in
particular to a book in which Stephen sets forth his doc¬
trines (pp. 42 — 43) in a language which, he says, is en¬
tirely inadequate to the subject, // insipid and foolish ”. From
this book he extracts most of the statements which he con¬
demns. What other works of Bar Sudaili he may have seen ,
it does not appear. Had he known of the imposture perpetrated
by Stephen, he would not have failed to publicly accuse him
of it: the secret character of the Book of Hierotheos must
for some time have prevented its existence being generally
known, even if it had been already written at that time.
From several passages in Philoxenos it appears that Bar
Sudaili must have made numerous and active disciples (though
he seeks to deny it) , and have kept up continuous relations
with Edessa , where he boasted of having adherents. We
find that Philoxenos himself, before becoming acquainted
with Stephen’s most reprehensible doctrines, wrote to him
a letter — now lost — which he sent by one of Stephen’s
disciples named Abraham: and the reason which induced
Philoxenos to write to Abraham and Orestes at Edessa was,
that they had received from Bar Sudaili letters and other
works, sent to them through some of his followers; by which
he wished to seduce them, and probably others, to adopt his
pernicious doctrines.
Thus much have we been able to collect respecting Bar
Sudaili : now it will be necessary, in order to complete his
biography, to pass to the question of his identity with Pseudo-
Hierotheos.
VII.
MR SUDAILI CONSIDERED BY SYRIAN WRITERS TO BE
THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS.
It has already been stated by Asseman l) that Gregory
Bar cEbraia the monopbysite patriarch (XIII cent.) asserted
the great work of Bar Sudaili to have been that entitled the
Book of Hierotheos. The passage referred to is in his work
entitled, Kli-.io._x3 iii-usa 2). In giving an enumeration
of heresies on the Incarnation , he assigns the last place to
Bar Sudaili, saying3): // Thirtieth heresy; that of Stephen
1) B. 0., T. II , p. 290—291.
2) K'ivxlii.m. KIxjoKAix. A\^p3 Klz-.iO.i3 Aiiiatt , at the end of
the IV foundation ; cf. Asseman , ibid.
3) . K'-LV*' .1 O^ ira KlAKlS^fioKll >03 QQxQoio3
}a_L.iA o-A.io . Kloxii-AvA KisaAa-z. i-^JK' Kilos
. K'io-l-a Kl \rf . Kln.x-X.‘i ^.xnl <kxj=a j.xJ5*iA._n.
KLxOqAk' KllxfA ^3 .l-^lLsk C\ . K'.lKlz- AK* Klm030
^ \
oiiaaxaa . K&\x^.iA> Klios.i K'iio.z. Ai^zi .raAmK' Klraimo
AvsaKlik . >oi*i.ia qdO.xXJ0O.1O.*.! KLx*!.J3! o3_rai QoOK&ixK'.l
AK' . ccoK^iiK' kLx*.!-x3.i ^jazjKlaw oos oi_V*.i.i ocb v^k*
. in oa.^73 Kim 03 k^Kx^qd
. A_^._=a in K'oiAk' rcboil! QDO-io.^ iiaK'! v^xK' w^CD
64
bar Sudaili He affirmed that there will be an end to the
torments (of hell) , and that the wicked ivill not suffer
forever , but ivill be purified by fire. Thus will mercy
be shewn even to demons , and everything will return into
the Divine nature , as Paul says , t/God will be all in air .
He also wrote a book in support of this opinion , and called
it by the name of Hierotheos , the master of the holy Dio-
nysios , as if it ivere by the holy Hierotheos himself; which
many also think11.
In a second passage , in the first section of his Ecclesias¬
tical History l) , Bar cEbraia speaks of Stephen , but adds
nothing new, except that he mentions his Scripture-commen¬
taries. His words are : 2) „At this time Stephen bar Sudaili
became notorious as a monk in Edessa. He interpreted the
Scriptures according to his own ideas, and affirmed that
there will be an end to the torments of hell , and that sin¬
ners and even demons will be justified; laying down as the
foundation of his teaching that, as Paul says, r/God ivill
be all in all”.
These few words represent in an absolutely exact manner
the teachings of Bar Sudaili as related by Philoxenos , but
the most important point is the categorical assertion , that
Bar Sudaili attempted to palm off his principal work as that
of Hierotheos , the supposed master of Dionysios the Areopa-
gite. Were this statement only the expression of Bar cEbraia’s
1) Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 222. 2) r<* Arc' rdlava ctxraCV
jix2kO . »cnic\rdr3 *1*03.10^. ia
'AjD.i.'usa.ia . rClnicocA
Aa=3 1* k'ctApc' rcbcraj.i ,cn lx. . nC'.iKlx-
. cn &\ CV.12A.Z73 .1 K'AvflorC'Axx. Do . QoCvXcv^ vyK'
G5
personal opinion, one could but feel considerable hesitation
in accepting the conclusions of a writer who lived more than
seven centuries after the one whom he criticises ; and until
now the assertion has been supposed to rest entirely with
him *). The case assumes a different aspect when, in another
of his writings, Bar ‘Ebraia quotes in support of his view
a writer of the VIII century , Kyriakos Patriarch of Anti¬
och (793 — 817). This passage occurs in the Nomocanon or
KiimW rtla>a»ilo ftlicxixa Kl.iocn.i
;/The Book of Directions concerning ecclesiastical Canons and
civil laws'. In ch. VII, sect. 9 * 2) , in which he enumerates
the canonical and apocryphal Scriptures, etc., after speaking
of apocryphal revelations of the apostles John , Paul , Peter , etc.,
he gives a sentence of Kyriakos on the book of Hierotheos
in these terms: nxti.i ocn cociniiaD
i— a r< 1x33.1 r<Ar<' C\co caA*.i cA
K'L’re’ .icv^. i/The patriarch Kyriakos
(says) : The book entitled (that) of Hierotheos is not by him
but probably by the heretic Stephen Bar Sudaili".
Bar ‘Ebraia might have quoted another writer, who also
lived in the VIII and IX centuries , John bishop of Dara ,
whose testimony is of the greater value in that he was a
noted mystic and a student of the writings of preceding
mystics, especially those of Pseudo-Dionysios Beside his
book on the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies , already
mentioned , he wrote an important work on the soul 3)
and another on the resurrection of the body4). The latter,
-1) This is the opinion of Neander, Dorner, and all who have treated
the subject.
2) Cod. Syr. Vat. CXXXII, f. 32: cf. Assemani B. 0., T. II, p. 302,
and Catal. T. Ill, p. 199. 3) Assem. B. 0., T. II, pp 219,505.
4) Cod. Syr. Vat. C. Cf. Assem. Cat. T. II, p. 530.
Frothingham , Bar Sudaili.
5
66
entitled rStZlrtLSxj r^Lii.JK' r^tstia 1^,
nFour boohs on the resurrection of human bodies' \ is a work
of great interest and learning: in it he devotes a chapter
(1. IV, c. 21) to supporting the eternity of Paradise and
Hell1). The opening sentence is worth quoting: uDiodoros of
Tarsos in the book which he icrote on the (Economy , and
Theodore his disciple and the master of Nestorios , say in
many places that there is an end to condemnation . The same
course is also taken by the work called the Book of Hiero-
theos , which is in reality not by him but was skilfully writ¬
ten by another in his name , that is by Stephen bar
Sudaili. Gregory of Nyssa also , in his book r£i*Avisa
and in that to his sister Makrina , and in other compositions ,
teaches the dogma of apokatastasis , that is , the return into
the first principle , and says that there will be an end to
future torments. However , all the doctors of the church , Greeks
as well as Syrians , ivith the sole exception of this saint , say
unanimously that there ivill be no end to the torments of hell2).”
1) Cod. C. f. 69, V. Cf. ibid. p. 537-8.
2) k'Ai aion .i ocn k1=)Ai*=3 ocn oocno.io*.!
: 02*10^021.1 oiaio pdicn.i cn:uvi\ A\ 02^*1 G.iGpt&o ^Ax^rC'.i
CT23 . r^.l*.lA h£=*AoX- AxiK'.l J.ATS33K' K&rC’x^O? n^Avxiow
oi\.*.n . 0 ooK'AiiK'i pC'in A\=n.i 003 rdsAx^o K&K' KLmIGp^ts
A.-:*. ^».i rtll’ijjK' . AxiK'vii. jcnnAur^ rt'A
.=3C\Aa A\o_^cn . rd.\..*.icv^> i-=3 rdi-^J^oor^.i ocno . ea_=7i_x-
02-1*1 Kil-*A\i_=n ocn K'irnrdSto rdAocu.i ooO.*ia^*i^G
01=3 Avoirs o . cnA\_*> rdl*in.=^ A>o_\.l 001=30
K*10^ AvjAGK' 0a*JttrcA^O2K^^O3kK'.l Gen rd=7i\o.il
/
67
In the same chapter John of Dara quotes , among other
authorities in favor of the eternity of punishment , the letter
of Jacob of Sarug to Stephen. His long extract extends
from p. 18, 1. 16 of the text, to p. 24, 1. 10, and covers nearly
the same ground as the extract, in Add. 17,193 , of which we
have given the various readings under the letter D.
These two authorities flourished between two and three
centuries after Bar Sudaili , and it is easy to perceive that
there must have been a continuous tradition among Syrian
church writers on the subject; a tradition which is of the
greatest authority even taken by itself, and if in accord with
the intrinsic evidence would seem to be incontestable. It is
clear, from what precedes, that this work took a very promi¬
nent position , and exercised a strong influence over the dif¬
ferent schools of thought.
Having reached this point in my researches on Bar Sudaili ,
I made every attempt to discover traces of the Book of Hie-
rotheos. Father P. Halloix wrote a life of Hierotheos for his
collection of lives of Eastern church writers of the first two
centuries *) , but in it were used only the fragments quoted
. c\cn rtlnxll- <k\ reL"5l\ CV.X-
KLicn rtLficuaoo Au* Klxicv.*
PCl^*l\a.X. AvA.l ^C\crA^ >CT30.1CU».V=3 Klr*.l£}
. C\CTD KLtli.1X.AA
1) lllustrium Ecclenae Orientalis Scriptoruin vitae et documenta. Duaci
1633, p. 600 — 634. The so-called life is made up of quotations from
mediaeval writers. The commemoration in the Menaei of the Greek church
shows what superstitious reverence was accorded to the shadowy per¬
sonality of Hierotheos . known to them only through the medium of
Dionysios.
68
by Pseudo-Dionysios : the other references were valueless as
independent testimony, for they were all derived from the
Pseudo-Dionysian writings. Halloix had no knowledge whatever
of any Book of Hierotheos, ov of a possible connection be¬
tween Pseudo-Hierotheos and Bar Sudaili , but believed im¬
plicitly in the existence of a first century writer. Researches
among Greek and Latin MSS. were also of no avail. I found,
however , that there still existed at the British Museum a
unique MS. of the book of Hierotheos in Syriac. It was
described, but erroneously, in Rosen and ForshalTs catalogue
as translated and commentated by Theodosios Patriarch of
Antioch, the second alone being the case. This work I was
enabled to copy.
VIII.
THE BOOK OF HIEHOT1IEOS.
As already remarked, this Book pretends to have been writ¬
ten by a certain holy man of the first century, Hierotheos,
a disciple of S. Paul and teacher of Dionysios the Areopa-
gite, to whom also the work is supposed to be addressed.
Legend tells us that he was the first bishop of Athens ,
before Dionysios , and that he afterwards went to Spain ,
where he remained as bishop. Dionysios says that he was
present with the apostles at the death of the Virgin , and
became noted for his beautiful hymns.
To return to our subject: this work is extant only in
Syriac, in connection with an extensive commentary by
Theodosios, patriarch of Antioch at the close of the IX cen¬
tury (887 — 896), in a unique MS. of the British Museum
belonging, in great part, to the XIII century1). This is the
very copy which, after great labor, Bar cEbraia succeeded in
procuring, and from which he composed a compendium of the
work, of which we will soon have occasion to speak2).
In the MS. , after a letter and an introduction by Theo-
1) Add. (Rich) 7,189. Cf. the Cat. of Rosen and Forshall, p. 74.
2) Cf. Wright’s remarks, supplementary to the Cat. of R. and F. , at
the close of vol. Ill of his Catalogue.
70
dosios , and immediately preceding the introductory chapter
of the text , is a short preface or rather dedication hy the
person, real or supposititious, who translated the work from
Greek into Syriac: it is addressed to his Maecenas, a certain
//Philios”, at whose request he undertook the work.
Theodosios appends a commentary to this dedication in the
same manner as he does to the text of the work itself: in
no case could he have been the author of the translation.
The same anonymous translator also adds a postscript at
the end of the volume, addressed to the same Philios, in
which he speaks of completing and sending him his trans¬
lation , with an accompanying letter.
The Syriac itself is remarkably idiomatic, pure and easy ,
and shows no trace of being fettered by the necessities ot
a translation : this is very evident in comparison with the
Syriac translation of Dionysios, in which the strained and
unidiomatic character of the language is apparent at every
point , though it is the work of such an able man as Ser¬
gios of Rascain.
If the Book of Hierotheos be considered the work of Bar
Sudaili, two hypotheses naturally present themselves for the
explanation of the linguistic purity we have mentioned.
1) We may allow that Bar Sudaili wrote the work in
Greek, but that, in order to foster his propaganda in the
region of Edessa , he translated it himself into Syriac : or
2) we may suppose that the existence of a Greek original
is purely fictitious, and that the Syriac text we possess is
the real original. This fiction of a Greek text was neces¬
sary to render the imposture credible, because, if genuine,
the Book of Hierotheos must have been written in Greek.
In this case the pretended translator’s introduction and note
were a fiction of Bar Sudaili along with the text, and we
71
would not need to be surprised at the non-appearance of the
supposed Greek original. This latter supposition seems the
most plausible, after a careful study of the text: the only
valid objection would be the existence of any traces of a
Greek text. I have found an apparent one, but its value
is so questionable that it can hardly weigh in the balance.
In a Latin catalogue of Greek MSS. existing at Constanti¬
nople towards 1600 we find the following title l): // Explicatio
S. Cyriili Arciepiscopi Alexandriae in S. Hierotheum Areo-
pagitam.” There are two objections to this being a reliable
proof. 1) This work of Cyril is necessarily an imposture,
as he lived more than a half-century before Bar Sudaili
and Pseudo-Dionysios , and consequently it may have been
written by some monk, a follower of Bar Sudaili’s doctrine,
as an additional prop to the stage-work of his fiction. 2) There
seems to have existed some confusion between the persons
of Hierotheos and Dionysios ; in evidence of which we will give a
passage from Pseudo-Dionysios quoted in an early Syriac MS.
(IX century) as by Hierotheos 2) , and furthermore in this
1) Antonii Possevini, Apparatus Sacer. Coloniae Agrippinae 1608.
T. II; in fine, p. 46, under the heading: »Ex catalogo Librorum variis
in locis Constantinopoli extantium , qui sunt graece MS. quique a Gram-
matico fuere exhibiti.
2) Brit. Mus. Add. 17,191 (of IX or X cent.) f. 64:
jcnoAurc' : cnA\jjiru-^\ . ooc\rc'A\T»rc'
cOiAuK' AK'.i ,cn . ,cn
K'.l KbcnAx.T r<A.l
: K'Axxalra O r<i^.V^l=3C\ As*. AK'
^3.1 r^AvAa^zicx k&cAxjj^zi . r&uua en*Au K' K'.icn
. . . corns This passage is in reality from Divine Names , ch.
72
same catalogue of Constantinople MSS. we read the title:
//Liber sancti Hierothei , sive Dionysii Areopagitae , Episcopi
Atheniensis Theologicus , Hierarchia , et Mystica Theologia” * l).
Here the confusion is evident, and the reason for it is pat¬
ent : both were legendary personages , both supposed to
have been members of the Areopagos, disciples of S. Paul,
bishops of Athens, and to have lived in Spain. It is then
quite natural to suppose that this Pseudo-Cyrillian comment¬
ary may after all have treated of the Pseudo-Dionysian writ¬
ings. In confirmation of this we may refer to the fact
that at the council of Constantinople in 532, when the Dio¬
nysian writings were first brought forward, their supporters
alleged that S. Cyril had quoted them: this fact was dis¬
puted by the orthodox , and the quarrel became quite warm.
We have already noticed the great difficulty experienced
by Bar cEbraia in procuring a copy of the Book of Hiero-
theos ; but it is at first surprising to find that the patriarch
Theodosios and his friend Lazaros , bishop of Kyros , expe¬
rienced the same difficulty nearly four centuries before him :
both of them were most desirous of becoming acquainted
with the work, of taking it as their guide, and of unfolding
its mysteries ; and , as Theodosios informs us in his letter
to his friend Lazaros, they finally succeeded. Our surprise,
however , ceases when we read the opening chapters of the
book itself, and peiceive the frank and bold clearness with
which the author develops his anti-christian and ultra-pan¬
theistic system. That he is conscious, all the time, of the
IV, § 27. "Or; <$£ ov$e xxxi'oct; oHItiov ry ^VXV T° dyAov hx rov Svvoitqv
Uvea xcet txvsv (rcc/xciTOi: Tvcepn^taraa^ou xuxtoev , wctt ep Iv oou'/xoai' tovtc yap sari
xoti volt ; , xou 4 •> <ru(xei(ri xctxov , y rye, tuv olxetuv atyccQav <x<rQeveiOi
xou cvKQ7rT(ti<rt$.
1) Ant. Possevini , ibid.
73
peril he runs, is evident from the oft-repeated injunction, under
the severest penalties, not to disclose the mysteries of the book
before //impure minds” (i. e. orthodox). Both the pretended
Syrian translator in his introduction, and Theodosios in his
commentary, reiterate this caution most emphatically. This
secrecy is the keynote to the method of teaching of the
Book of Hierotheos, and the assurance that the doctrines
would not pass beyond the circle of the initiated explains
the boldness of the language. We now see not only the
reason for the scarcity of copies and for the difficulty in
obtaining one , but also why the book occupied so excep¬
tional a position.
We could hardly expect to find any general acquaintance
with *a work the knowledge and use of which was kept
confined as much as possible to the narrow circle of esote¬
ric mystics: even if inimical hands, attracted by vague re¬
ports, sought to obtain possession of it, they must have
been generally baffled by the discretion and secrecy of the
initiated, who were familiar with the anathemas launched
against all disclosers of its mystical doctrines. Theodosios
himself, however, leads us to conclude that before his time
a number of theologians had commentated the work, but
he omits to mention any of them by name. It is possible
that he refers, among others, to Kyriakos and John of Dara,
whom we have already quoted. This is all the more prob¬
able, because he speaks of these theologians as objecting to
Hierotheos’ doctrine of the redemption of the hell-sphere,
which is precisely what Kyriakos and John of Dara do.
74
THE POSITION GIVEN TO HIEROTIIEOS BY PSEUDO-
Turning to other writings which relate to our book, we
must pause to consider the position given by Pseudo-Dionysios
to his master Hierotheos: we have already alluded to the
terms of great reverence and admiration which he uses with
regard to him. The portrait he gives of Hierotheos tallies
completely with what we know of Bar Sudaili: the mysti¬
cism, the celestial visions, the abstruse and condensed thought,
the study of Scripture. I will here translate the chapter in which
Pseudo-Dionysios explains his relations to his master l). n And
here it is suitable to explain wherefore , inasmuch as our
illustrious master Hierotheos has made an admirable collec¬
tion of ‘Theological Elements’, we have, as if these were not
sufficient, written others beside the present theological treat¬
ise. Certainly, had he claimed to write, systematically , treat¬
ises on all theological questions , and had in special exposi¬
tions developed the sum of all iheology, we would never have
had the folly or the stupidity to consider ourselves better able
than he to treat of theological matters in a clear and divine
manner ; or to talk at random, by repeating the same things super-
1) Divine Names, ch. Ill, 2 — 3.
75
fluously ; and moreover show ourselves unjust towards a teacher
and friend by whom , after S. Paul , we were instructed , by
plagiarizing his most excellent doctrine and expositions. But
since he , in reality explaining divine things in a way suited
to mature minds, enounced unto us certain synoptic state¬
ments, which in one included many, he as it were encouraged
me and others, who like myself are teachers of newly-initi¬
ated souls, to unfold and interpret, in a language suited to
us, the synoptic and universal meditations of the spiritual
power of so great a man. Thou *) hast often thyself urged
me to do so, and didst return to me his book as being too
sublime. Therefore do we assign this teacher of perfect and
mature intelligences unto those who are above the crowd,
as second Scriptures, analogous to those divinely inspired.
We however will transmit divine things to those like us in a
manner suited to us. For, if solid food is for the perfect ,
what supreme perfection must it be to furnish such to others?
Therefore have we truly said that the direct vision of spiritual
truths and their synoptic teaching require a mature power ,
but that the acquaintance with and understanding of the
truths leading up to them is suited to the inferior conse-
crators and priests. However, this has been most carefully
observed by us , never to take in hand the things which this
divine teacher has explained with sufficient clearness, lest
we fall into tautology by giving the same explanation of a
passage which he has already cited. For among our divinely-
inspired hierarchs (when we , as thou knowest , together with
him and many of our holy brothers had come together for
the contemplation of the life-giving and God-receiving body,
when James the brother of God , and Peter the supreme and
1) Timothy, to whom the Divine Names is addressed.
76
venerable chief of theologians were present, it was decided,
after the contemplation , that all the hierarchs should sing
hymns, as each one was able, to the all powerful goodness
of the thearchic infirmity) as you know, he excelled, after
the theologians, all other initiated, being entirely beside him¬
self , all in an ecstasy, and feeling communion with that
which he was praising in hymns. He was considered by all
those who heard and saw him, whether they knew him or
not, to be divinely inspired and a divine psalmist. But where¬
fore should I speak to you of the divine things which were
there said : for , unless my memory betrays me , I feel certain
that I have often heard from you fragments of these divinely
enthusiastic psalmodies, such zeal did you feel in searching
diligently after divine things.
//But, passing over these mysteries, both because they are
not he mentioned to the common crowd and because they
are well-known to you , when it was necessary to confer
with the multitude and to draw as many as possible to our
own holy doctrine , how he surpassed the greater part of
sacred teachers, in the use of time, in purity of mind,
in acuteness of demonstration, and the rest of sacred dis¬
courses , so that we did not attempt even to look such a
great light (lit. sun) in the face ! For we are conscious and
aware of not being sufficiently able either to comprehend
those divine tilings which are intelligible , or to express and
explain those divines doctrines which are expressible ; being
left so far behind by the knowledge of these divine men in
theological truth , that through excessive timidity we would
have even concluded not to hear or say anything on divine
philosophy, had we not perceived that it was not right to
neglect what it is possible for us to know of divine things.
We were persuaded of this not only by the natural aspira-
77
tions of intelligences always filled with the desire for the
contemplation, in so far as is allowed, of supernatural things,
but also by the very excellent disposition of the divine ordi¬
nances , which while it forbids to meddle with what is above
us, both as being superior to our worth and as unattainable,
yet bids us to learn with zeal whatever is allowed and given
to us , urging us to communicate generously to others. Per¬
suaded then by this, and not desisting or shrinking from that
search after divine things which is within our reach , and
not bearing patiently that those who are not able to contem¬
plate the things above us should remain without help, we have
undertaken to write, not pretending to teach anything new,
but interpreting and showing forth, by investigations more
minute and applied to distinct parts . what had been said
synoptically by Hierotheos”. In another place (Div. Names II,
9) Dionysios says, as a preface to his quotation from Hiero-
theos’ Elements of Theology : // this has been unfolded in a
supernatural manner by our illustrious teacher in his Elements
of Theology, which he in part received from pious theolo¬
gians, in part conceived by a scientific investigation of
Scripture through his frequent exercise and practice therein ,
and in part was taught by some more divine inspiration, by
not only learning but experiencing divine things ( ov /uovov
[uaOcdv , aWd xai naOdv tcc data) and by his sympathy
(ov/ujiaOeiag) with them, if we may so express ourselves,
made perfect in the unteachable and mystical union with
and faith in them”.
The text of the quotations from Hierotheos will be given
with the text of the Book of Hierotheos for the sake of com¬
parison. They have already been referred to on p. 6.
In regard to these fragments it will not be out of place
78
to refer to an error committed by Dorner *). He makes an
elaborate statement of the Christology of Pseudo-Dionysios ,
and founds it entirely on the quotations from Hierotheos’
//Elements of Theology” in the Divine Names. All his con¬
clusions must simply be transferred to Hierotheos. This is
important , because the language of Dionysios himself con¬
cerning Christ is in quite a different form and in thought
more theological, while that of his master is ontological and
mystical. We seek in vain in the Book of Hierotheos for any
of the quotations given in the //Divine Names”; but, as we
have remarked, this could be no argument against the iden¬
tification of Hierotheos with Bar Sudaili, for in no case would
it have been prudent for Stephen’s disciple to give passages
from a work which the sect desired to keep as secret as
possible.
We find perhaps the earliest mention of Hierotheos, after
the appearance of the Dionysian writings, in the almost
contemporary history of Zacharias Rhetor. This historian ,
in giving a portrait of the famous Severos of Antioch , de¬
scribes him as //learned in the Holy Scriptures, and in the
commentaries on them by ancient writers, by Hierotheos
and Dionysios, Titus and Timothy, disciples of the apostles;
and after them by Ignatios, Clement, and Irenaios, etc.”1 2).
It would seem probable that Zacharias , who , it must be
added, was himself quite a religious philosopher, points to
something more being known, of the writings which passed
under the name of Hierotheos, than the few fragments given
by Pseudo-Dionysios. This passage would then be interesting,
as it would show that Severos , who was a supporter of
1) History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ , D. II , v. I. p. 157 sqq.
2) Land, Anecdota Syriaca T. Ill, p. 228.
79
Dionysian doctrines, favored also those of Pseudo-Hierotheos.
Were the writings of Severos better known , more light might
be thrown on the subject of his relation to the mystical
school.
We have already mentioned the spurious // Explicatio S.
Gyrilli” on Hierotheos, and the probable confusion between
Dionysios and his master: in this connection it may be re¬
marked that it has been already suggested by the learned
Dailly *) that the Hierotheos spoken of by Pseudo-Dionysios
is none but the latter himself, for in his opinion Hierotheos
was an invented name. It is likely that this explanation
may have suggested itself from the entire. lack of informa¬
tion at that time regarding any person of this name or
any works written by or attributed to him, with the single
exception of what we read in Pseudo-Dionysios.
It would seem impossible for any one , after reading even
an outline of the Book of Hierotheos, to accept for a moment
this theory of identification. The intellectual position of the
two minds is entirely different: Pseudo-Hierotheos is a simple
monk, whose thought is entirely distinct from any philo¬
sophic system , claiming direct vision , drawing his theories
from his own consciousness , and expressing them with
great naivete and freshness; it is the divine seer, and not
the philosophic genius, who speaks. On reading his book
one feels it to be the genuine out-pouring of a strongly-
excited religious imagination , and the work of an original
mind , but of no eclectic or imitator. It is true we find in
his system ideas from both the Christian and pagan schools
of Alexandria — especially from Origen — as well as traces
1) Joannes Dalleeus, De scriptis quae Dionysii Areopagitse et Ignatii
Antiocheni nominibus circumferuntur. Geneva 1666.
80
of the kabbalistic and gnostic systems and perhaps even of
the early Chaldaean cosmogony: but they are marshalled
into a perfectly symmetrical and harmonious whole, in sub¬
ordination to the ideal peculiar to Hierotheos himself. With
him there is never any attempt at discussion. His theories
are successively unfolded as absolute and undeniable cer¬
tainties , as revelations, as things which he has known
and seen.
On the other hand, although Pseudo-Dionysios shows much
of the same spirit in his Mystical Theology and Divine Names ,
yet even here there appears the logical element so conspic¬
uous in his writings , which classifies him in a different
branch of the mystical school from that of Pseudo-Hierotheos ,
as well as in far closer connection with the Neo-Platonists.
We might say, that the one has a considerable affinity with
the West-Syrian school of Antioch, and that the other belongs
to the East-Syrian school of Edessa: for these represented,
the former, the intellectual and logical side of the Syrian
development, and the latter, its sentimental, symbolical and
analogical side.
81
X.
THE QUESTION OF THE PRIORITY OF H1EROTHEOS
TO DIONYSIOS.
Th is leads to the discussion of another question , which
may already have occurred to the reader. Is it not natural
to suppose that the Book of Hierotheos was produced pre¬
cisely in view of the references to Hierotheos in Pseudo-
Dionysios, and is dependent on the latter, and consequently
of no independent value? Would it not have been quite pos¬
sible that a follower of Dionysios should have fancied to
sustain his master’s position by bringing out a work which
should bear out his relation to Hierotheos ? Were this the case,
the author of a work of this kind would naturally have made
it to correspond with the indications in Dionysios: would in
all likelihood have entitled his work the OsoXoyizal JSV oc-
^eicoaeis or Principles of Theology, and with it would have
incorporated , as a proof of authenticity , the passages quoted
from that book in the Divine Names. He would also have
referred more than once by name to his beloved disciple
Dionysios. Supposing it to be an artificial production of this
kind , would it not also be natural to find it a work entirely
imitative, in the same style of thought as the Dionysian
writings, but lacking their power and originality?
Frothingham , Bar Sudaili. 6
Now we find nothing' of all this in the Book of Hiero-
theos : not only is the title different, and does it treat ne¬
cessarily of a different order of ideas — the ontological and
cosmological — but there is no sign of the passages quoted
by Dionysios. Even the name of Dionysios is not mentioned,
though the work seems to be dedicated to him : he is only
referred to as //my son” or //my friend” *). There is throughout
no trace of any attempt to connect itself with the Pseudo-
Dionysian writings. Besides this , what has already been noted
regarding the difference in intellectual standpoint, style and
form of thought is sufficient, I think, to preclude the idea
of imitation : for it is clear that the relation in which the
two stand to each other as presenting, the one, sentimental
and analogical forms, and the other, intellectual and logical
forms of the same ideas, gives, according to the natural
development of schools , the priority to Hierotheos.
In this relation , reference must be made to a very saga¬
cious conjecture made by Dorner, which is all the more re¬
markable because he had such meagre materials at hand on
which to base it. He says: //Hierotheus was professedly the
teacher of Dionysius; and under the name of Hierotheus
Barsudaili wrote the work in which he taught the transition
of all things into the divine nature. Such is the account
given by Barhebraeus. Among the Monophysites the writings
of the Areopagite were much used , translated and commen¬
tated. It is possible that Barsudaili’s fiction, — a fiction to
which he may have been led by the Origenism which pre¬
vailed in many of the monasteries, and which formed a
bridge to Neo-Platonism , — may have given rise to the
spread of Neo-Platonism in a Church form , under the name
1) S. Paul is spoken of by name as his master.
83
of the holy disciple of Hierotheus ” 1). In this passage Dorner
recognizes the true relation between the two writers , and
this position of his is now amply confirmed. Gfrorer also in
his Church History draws similar conclusions in his remarks
on the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. Who was Pseudo-Diony-
sios? In his opinion a follower of Proklos, and by birth a
Syrian. This latter position he attempts to prove by the
relations between Dionysios and Hierotheos.
Taking then for granted the priority of Hierotheos , is it
not singular that Dionysios should not have mentioned this
most important work of his master? As we have already
explained, this silence was necessary to the preservation of
the secret character of the book.
A comparison of dates does not throw any difficulties in
the way of the priority of Hierotheos. Bar Sudaili we know
to have flourished during the last decade of the fifth cen¬
tury and the beginning of the sixth, while the first signs
of the appearance of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings occur
probably during the second decade of the sixth century at
the earliest, the first certain date being that of the Council
of 532 — 33. That they were already known before this date
of 532 seems certain , and Sergios’ Syriac version was pro¬
bably slightly anterior.
1) Dorner, J. A., History of development of the doctrine of the Person
of Christ. Edinb. 1861. D. II. v. I. p. 422 — 23.
84
COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF IIIEROTHEOS,
To return to the Syrian writers who have treated this
book in extenso , we find still remaining to us two works
of importance: the first is the commentary of Theodosios of
Antioch, and the second is an abridgment of the work by
Gregory Bar cEbraia. These two are of very unequal value,
lor the latter is more an imitation than a work of any
original merit.
The physician Romanos, on becoming Jacobite Patriarch
of Antioch in 887 , took the name of Theodosios : his two
great works seem to have been his commentary on Hiero-
theos and a treatise on medicine x). He must have been an
enthusiastic follower of the mystico-pantheistic school, as also
his friend Lazaros of Kyros at whose request he undertook
and to whom he dedicated his work. The letter which he
addresses to Lazaros at the beginning of his commentary
would be of great interest: unfortunately the first sheets of
the MS. are so defaced that but a small portion of it can
be satisfactorily deciphered. In it he recounts how both he
1) H. Zotenberg, Les sentences symboliques de Th^odose, patriarche
d’Antioclie. Paris 1877, p. 8 — 9.
85
and his friends desired to procure a copy of the Book oi
Hierotheos in order that it should become their leader on
the way of salvation. It is a significant fact that the highest
dignitaries of the Syrian Church should adopt as their eso¬
teric Bible, so to speak, as a divine revelation, a work like
this. A few passages from this letter will be given in a note ,
to illustrate what has just been said and to show the rea¬
sons which led Theodosios to undertake his commentary 2).
1) AuK^vstti iAuaasn.'iG . KxitK'iG Kl3L».Tn k1i°AgA .
AurK .1^ kLjk' Au-a^* . gogk'A\t*k' r^x*.To.i
rdx*njD Kiicn KliaA a. A >cnA Au*.=d A* v^xaj.i coA>gjA^
iA\=ai vyaa.vi.i Kllsi^. k&gkAg v\Van. k 'A .ta . kIctAk'cn
v^-xA-i*. Avxxai^.A>K' KlA-^Kb . KLsAu^ rdicn.i cnAux^x.
jujiA>.i. A>gct3 kAi kA>cAx^=) AKb cdA^gvA^
Avxtd^ KllK' KlA-^K' . Kliai^3.l >CT3C\\ib.l ^cniza K'A\x£ix>A>
kA>icx\A> ^r<b . KliiA>c\* kucd ^a v^vA-^k'.i
^Kb : cai.^3 '.ixn&u jjulul i*Au.i k'icdgjg kiAk' . CQxAuK'
^_ix> K'lO-^.tn >ct3 . Auk' ax» KLai.i kAi^givdi v^k'
Kl^7ixx>i kA\a1C\.i3.t v^xK'.i A^^pacv kAk' ; k!xA_\g k1^.\j
^310 KfxljjGl KliCTD vy^K'.l.l KfxfloioAA Tl^.3.1 ^Asw
Ax^cn Klia.cn . AA^K' ^SiK'n >.A KlSttxwi Kli^cn . *_X2kA\Jsn
KllK' Kla^G Klin.xxii.1 KL’^1^ K\l . KA\x^iA> >A Kllx.l
. AkAiu.i >cn . Klnuujo K'_iKl2k i*Au Kli^cn . .2ia>K'_,5a_\
K'-xi^GK'-ra K'.TVJ^aA T-iK' K laj A\*ni-^zix^.l j-JiO Gca_lK'
vyK' . pdls cnlA.i K'ctAk'.i rdflocoil ^ .K'ctAk'.i
.A> KlA vyin~wA Kli-Qo vyA^-.i K'-usnK'.i >cn
86
Immediately following the letter is a long introduction by
Theodosios , in which he summarizes the book , explains his
view of it, and enters into an elaborate and interesting in¬
terpretation of all the mystical and philosophical terms used
in the text — interpretations which are valuable not only
for the understanding of the work , but often also philolo-
gically.
The commentary of Theodosios is very detailed , and occu¬
pies about three-quarters of the Tt0 volume of 13T pages.
He is very careful to define and explain all the expressions
used , and often does so in a very mystical and fanciful
manner. In his opinion , the most abstruse doctrines in the
book are veiled under words which would suffice to hide
them from the uninitiated, but to //pure minds” //be easy
of interpretation.”
1< iJK' 02^73 . Alxlfi y_\ AuK'.I 3 C\CT3 >\ AuK' KiA
\\^c\ ^cAxjjMz) crira AK* rAcn3 ^*.1
<?haAc\ .K&axso.xcn.i mA\.xrs yira <^cvA.i nd3cn
Kix.cn Kiicn K*\ kS\ ^YaK*
Kiicn KirjAxsA.l V^.VDCVsA KilGD A\^C\ .... JLO
jjl^X.^73 rc'.icn cnra K'tK'i w^K* C\A .
Kiico A>C._\ ,A>CX_VxjjlJ50 Klifc.AK' KiA PC' . rdjrC'
Kllrc' .raixjivso .... »the holy and mystical doctrine, hidden in alle¬
gories , of the blessed Hierotheos. I will endeavor to interpret to you ,
as you in the goodness of your heart have asked , this holy and divine
teaching. For the labors and fatigue in searching after this book never
discouraged you, neither were you stopped by the lack of it, nor by
the pains you were obliged to take to remove the veil from off the words
of the Teacher. I do not therefore wish to defraud you of this profit.
Even if it is a laborious work, yet will we derive from it a most glorious
illumination.* etc. etc.
87
Besides the general introduction , each one of the five books
is preceded by a particular one. To the text of the chapters
the commentary is attached in two different ways in different
parts oi’ the MS. : either the whole chapter of the text is
first given, and then repeated in short sections, each with
a separate commentary; or else, in order to avoid repetition,
the latter system alone is used without first giving the whole
text. As a scientific, thorough and systematic work, this
commentary is remarkable, and gives a favorable idea of the
possibilities of Syrian learning.
There is nothing in any part of Theodosios’ writings to
indicate that he did not believe implicitly in the authorship
of a genuine first-century Hierotheos: we will soon have to
refer to the probable sincerity of this belief.
Bar cEbraia also interested himself in the Book of Hiero-
theos, and sent emissaries throughout the. East to procure a
copy: he finally obtained one, which, strange to say, is
the identical copy now preserved in the British Museum J) ,
and that to which we are indebted for our knowledge of the
work. From this MS. he drew up a compendium, to which
he added a running commentary, derived principally from
that of Theodosios. He took however great liberties with the
text, and showed the true unscrupulousness of an Eastern
in distorting it for the purpose of softening its anti-christian
tone and hiding its real character 1 2). The worst part of the
process to which he submitted the book was the entire
change he made in the order of the chapters , placing near
1) See the note on the last page of the MS., where the fact is no¬
ticed and an account of the search is given. Cf. Wright’s Cat. vol. Ill,
supplem.
2) Ms. copies of this work exist in Paris (Bib. Nat. Fonds Syr. 227),
in Oxford, ind in the British Museum (Syr. MS. 850 ; Wright, Cat. p. 893
and Add. 1(17).
88
each other those which belonged to the beginning and end,
and uniting in one others which had not the slightest re¬
lation. As we have already remarked that, in the Book of
Hierotheos, all the parts are mutually dependent, it may
well be imagined that the compendium of Bar cEbraia, being
made in this manner, is devoid of all order and rational
sense , and gives no idea of the scope of the original. The
excuse he gives in his introduction is , that he found the
primitive order to have been inverted and the text corrupted
by the translator ! *).
1) A\\icn Klim rdxixjai o rd ^.1 .x.i
rdi A\^c\:v*c\ rd^i_x_^.xii i\_x.n=DA>r<b
K'vw . rdixsaio rdrai r<L=>A\_ii cn Av> vw . coc\r<'A>r<'i"<'
. rdAAao rd^irdo r<A^Axi >ct3Qr<lV<\h\o > cn c\
cni.^ a_\ rdicno . ,cnc\.^i\A\^ A>cv^cnc\
^o.l orAsa* Avoirs . KllVnx^3 ^273 rcAr^ . rdiixca^. pdl=)Ai£k273
oa fxi3.i-a.xi rA rdacna . pdxxia.sa_\ rd_x_30_.»
rd^rth c rA Klicn^.T rdAv.^ 0.1=3 .Tu 1x> yxxsaic\ ^QJrf
1*0 . rXlm <6 . ^lx*.l vy*rd cyA xxlxi.l
,cnaA.2zA rdA-^rda . pdjAuwOix.i >cr>cA_2zA ndA rdicn
. 'n.V'273 J.U273 OK' ^l£i_Vxxl- rdA Avsord* Klin 1*2*3 .1
. AK6 1_* va^K' . rdA-B AxJLa «. _ K' rdArd
*tq:V2*A ^acnl.273 ^JLx^arX' ^oira .3CU*.ls ^x\cn\ KlSO.l.l 23.1.2*50
}oi.2*3 rdnCLQa^O rdrd\.<\jD vy r <b . rd3iA>Ox i>^=) ,0DCnAv*pc':i
rd-2*3.ll "n.T^JO rdx\cA a rdi rdl*\a.* . rdL**ea2*3
r<iX,_*_2*> CQJ273 1-2*3 rd_2*l_^A\._* cn=3 rdocn ^rdo . {*orA
.=joA> ^_1_273J3D ‘tlT_3 . ^.x3 OO-ik- ^AcnAl kA\^.Vxx1^3 r*A\x*O.V3
80
It is a singular circumstance that Bar cEbraia, who, as
we have seen , states emphatically in other places that Bar
Sudaili was the real author, does not mention or even in¬
sinuate the fact in this compendium or in his introduction
to it, but on the contrary speaks of the work as genuine.
It is perhaps possible that his inimical position to the
Book of Hierotheos dated from an earlier period, when as
yet he had not laid eyes on it and found it so much to his
taste. If this were so , he had obvious reasons for not laying
any stress on its authorship by the anathematized Bar Sudaili.
This raises , however , another important question : did Theo¬
dosios know that Bar Sudaili was the author, or even that
the work was attributed to him? I do not consider his com¬
plete silence on the question , and his open acceptance of
the authenticity, to be a sound proof of his good faith in
considering the work as that of a first-century Hierotheos.
JLO CTD.TSas*. fZQ 5-^fc. . »Know , my spiritual brother , that
having for a long time studied and considered the Book of the illustri¬
ous , wise and learned Hierotheos , I have found it to be a great and
wonderful book: but 1 perceived that its books and chapters were con¬
fused , lengthened and corrupted , as also were some of its sentences ,
and that this had been done not by the above-mentioned writer but
by the translator. I therefore desired to translate it from Greek into
Syriac , and decided also to put (its chapters) in order , and to arrange
each one in the place it ought to occupy and to which, in our judgment
and opinion, it was suited. In doing this, however, we have not cor¬
rupted the words of the learned (author) nor the words of the com¬
mentator, not having changed or added any thing of our own except
only a few words, such as .Vi and ^*.1 and AK' and other similar ones.
Still we have removed some things of small importance, as well as some
perverted chapters and sections ; and things like the theory of astrology ,
although there were perverse sentences in many places which agreed
with it. We have arranged the chapters of this book according to the
oeconomy of the life of Our Lord, beginning with his baptism,” etc. etc.
90
We have seen it to be a fact well known in the Syrian
literary and religious world of that period, that the Book
was attributed to Stephen. Now of this fact such a man as
Theodosios could not have been ignorant when it was well
known to Kyriakos and John of Dara. But it would have
been quite natural for him to repudiate and conceal such
knowledge; for even at that time it would have been re¬
garded as a very questionable step for the leaders of the
Church to take , as their spiritual guide, an openly-reprobated
pantheist.
01
XII.
SUMMARY OF THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS ON THE
HIDDEN MYSTERIES OF THE DIVINITY.
It would not be possible within the limits of a few pages
to give a satisfactory summary of a work written in such
a condensed style, and full of so many unusual, and to us
strange, ideas: still we will endeavor to give, as far as
possible , a correct idea of the work , using , if not the exact
wording of the author, a very similar language. We have
purposely avoided attempting a critical analysis , or a compa¬
rison with earlier writings which contain similar doctrines;
all this can he done only when we publish the text itself.
The full title of the work is not given on the first sheet
of the MS. , but appears from the introductory commentary
to he V-a-1-^ p<'\pc'i A.2W..1 : oooK&iaK' rcLrxkik
. rc'eaW £ya=d.t The Book of the hohy Hierotheos on the hid¬
den mysteries of the Divinity (lit. of the house of God). It
is divided into five books , each of which contains a number
of chapters. It is a real theological epic, in which the
mystical scenes through which the soul passes in its ascent
towards the One are developed in a vivid manner , as if the
writer saw //heaven open and the angels of God ascending
and descending’ upon the Son of man”. The writer himself
professes to have more than once attained to the highest
point of mystic union with the Arch-Good.
To describe the contents in a few words : at the beginning
we find the statement regarding absolute existence, and the
emanation from primordial essence of the spiritual and ma¬
terial universes : then comes, what occupies almost the entire
work , the experience of the mind in search of perfection
during this life. Finally comes the description of the various
phases of existence as the mind rises into complete union
with and ultimate absorption into the primitive essence.
The key-note to the experience of the mind is its absolute
identification with Christ; but the Son finally resigns the
kingdom unto the Father, and all distinct existence comes
to an end , being lost in the chaos of the Good.
BOOK FIRST.
Every intelligent nature is determined, known and com¬
prehended by the essence which is above it ; and determines,
knows and comprehends the essence which is beloiv it; but
to the pure mind alone belongs the vision above and beloiv ‘).
Not even to the intelligence of angels are the wonderful
mysteries of pure and holy minds revealed.
1) In Hierotheos the Arch-Good A>C\x»i)
is the first, indefinite and all-embracing principle. The Universal Essence
(Wcv.\i rtiooCNK') , the Unity, or the Neo-Platonic One, is second in
order of emanation : it contains within itself the principles of distinction
(see p. 95), and does not appear to be different from what is termed
the first fall out of the Good.
93
The Good, which we glorify, is the universal constituting,
providing, and sustaining power of the Universe ; from which
all distinct existences came to be through separation , by
which their being is sustained, and to which they constantly
desire to return.
Distinctions were established from the Universal Essence
in this wise. The Good being uniform could not produce
anything not uniform: therefore, when the fall from the Good
took place, distinct orders of existence did not immediately
come into being, for uniformity cannot produce distinction:
on the contrary, distinction comes from the distinct orders
of the Divine Nature , from alt the distinct and unequal na¬
tures of man , and of the animals that crawl upon the earth ,
and of birds and of beasts and of fishes , and also of the
distinct beings that are under the earth , and those which
suffer many torments in hell 1). Unto all these the measure
of their descent from the Good determines the extent of their
fall 2). When the fall from the Good happened to all things
at once) a quiet and silence extended itself over all: they
were then like that which is not 3) : perhaps they possessed
1) Aural ><dcvAv»p^i
p^Acn Kltfc’iSk ^c\crA^ kIIjA . k'ctAk'
K'Avui.SklCN . K&CUwiO rtlxiK'i rtlxcir.
K&rtLjL^oo .=»cvA\ QaxQoorc'io . rdicuio
Qaicn^rpi ^A^r^icx . AvuAAio
2) K'AvuO.x.'SO ^ocriA crijAuK' K'AvAa.-^.jrtt
3) Compare, with this idea of the emanation of matter and evil from
God, the same idea as expressed in the Zohar: this is one of the strong¬
est coincidences which can be traced , and one of the clearest traces of
a confused sense of their place ft). And I openly say , with
entire frankness , that they were Tohu and Bohu1).
After innumerable ages had passed , the Good was moved
to pour forth its love , and to brood over these unconscious
minds, in order that they should acquire the motion of life
and consciousness; then there was born in them a new heart
and a new spirit to know good and evil 2) : that is, it (the
Good) endowed them with free-will, and then established
the position of each essence according to the measure of its
love. It also made Christ head and ruler over them , and
this took place when the mind received reason 3). To some
Kabbalism in Hierotkeos. According to the Zokar, the En-Soph or an¬
cient of ancients , before it bad put on a form , — before the manifes¬
tation of the Sephiroth , — produced formless worlds which were emit¬
ted from it like sparks. These could not subsist but fell , because the
Adam Kadmon (as individualizing the 10 Sephiroth), which was to me¬
diate between the creation and the En-Soph , had not yet been created.
These worlds fell and were little above nothing , representing passive exist¬
ence and the feminine principle, where all is resistance and inertia, as
in matter (Tohu and Bohu). When the universal form of man (Adam
Kadmon the mediator) was established, these ancient fallen worlds fur¬
nished the material element in the existing created universe (see Franck,
La Kabbale, pp. 206, 207 and passim). This resistant passive principle
is individualized in Hierotheos by the unredeemable and irrational in¬
sensible essence (see page 104).
^CVorAii W peLnAv-X-O K&CVali. .
K'An • jCnoAuK' ‘n.XZzA ^.1 . K'ocn
onnrv^ —i P<A^rp T.tflK'CV . ^.xl_n (?) ^C\Cn Avl-S.I
. ooco ^ocrixAuK' cncvTDO cno^.i . rcAvrai
2) ^:v*cn *. r<Lx_jj.l t<L.2^c\\
I KAlIiaO r^AvrAy pcIjjCnSo K iaA
3) Avxzrv. ^ocoi^ A^ rc'.mn^a r<Lx.i KUx&XSol crA
. K'AAzn rdiocn Azin caa.i .* ocn rdlra >c\cn ^x\ cn .1
• • • •
95
minds, however, was left by the Good their unconscious and
irrational essence (as the powers of evil) , — but even they
will eventually be redeemed. One essence, also, immediately
on receiving consciousness began to oppose itself to the Good ,
and unto it were assigned the places under the earth.
The Universal Essence (from which all minds were di¬
rectly separated) is called universal , as it existed after se¬
paration from the Good , and before this ordered distinction :
for to it came all that which was separated from the Good ,
and from it came forth every nature which appears separately
and distinctly. For all minds were then confusedly mingled
in it , without distinction and without consciousness ; and , when
they acquired the consciousness of distinction , they came forth
from it x) . Those however which remained luithin the limits
of this essence acquired a superior consciousness ; and to them
does it pertain to reveal to divine minds , when they ( the minds)
reach them 2) , the glorious and holy doctrines of the divine
mysteries 3).
1) The same idea seems to be expressed by Pseudo-Dionysios (Div.
Names V, 5) when he says that God, »pre-possessing and super-posses-
»sing the anteriority and preeminence of being, caused the universal
» essence (to eivou rxv) to pre-exist; and from the universal essence itself
» caused being, of whatever kind it be, to exist”. Dionysios, by saying that
the universal essence pre-existed , means that it came into being before
all distinct and particular existence. Cf. Div. N. XI , 6. In this simple
presentation of the same ideas is exhibited , better than by any com¬
ment, the radical difference between the thought of the seer Hierotheos
and the philosopher Dionysios.
2) That is, during the ascent of the minds towards the Good.
3) L. I, ch. 8. oiaAtuK' ,03.1 .*Au \nb\r? ^».i
. rtllQQ^N^ 003 Kllx-io.2i ^Q.Txao : ^a.i iAvra
jaAl onusao . .x.ia.AxK' ^3! A^. K&K' on\
^.l_*o3 {-»i .1^ . K'v.uAvsa Aup£lx*%^a Aurc'.m.uA.i K A.*
rAAw on_=> KliOos ^Ooi\a : .^T-^3 r^lA.iO KlA.i
96
As to the number of celestial essences , they are innume¬
rable; but may be distinguished, as S. Paul says, into nine
orders, each with three divisions, and again each of these
containing nine distinctions. All have received different offices;
some are sanctifiers , some helpers , some guides. Each one
illuminates and influences the essence below it , but has no
knowledge of the one above it.
BOOK SECOND.
What is the glory by which we must glorify [the Good],
natural or supernatural ? To me it seems right to speak
ivithout ivords , and to understand without knowledge, that
which is above words and knowledge: this I apprehend
to be nothing but the mysterious silence and mystical quiet
which destroys consciousness and dissolves forms. Seek there¬
fore, silently and mystically , that perfect and primitive union
with the essential Arch-Good1).
^cnctA^ CVIjs .!^c\ : coco
.. anaivi.K' >co rtLiflooK'.l CVni^l
,cp ^ocn-Ln .SirC* .0.113
oor<L*iGr<A* . ^acnA^aX.i 3 . K'-»ariAr<' KliOcrA
. kL»oo\k' k4ix*wo K'JvjjuinL
1) rtA.iO : rtflAsa rcA.1.1 J3.1X.1 K'iraivai:^ ^0 A
rt iA . rdL±-Xzaa kAAszj >ls-n r&sn acn . )
.T=3O^0.i . K'VK'il Klix- a K'vxl^rdxD A\x- kAk* oAurc'.i Aviviirt'
: Aur^lMK'ia AixKlAx. ^>.1 .r^-Sni^.oorc'
^or*i f<Av*x*ia ncA\i-j-2a^ ,cn rcA>a.*.T4jA
97
Motion anti purification are the acts by which we gloiify
the Arch-Good. The first motion, as has been said, was a
descendent one, out of Nature1): but there are many mo¬
tions, some ascendent, and others descendent.
Natural motion belongs to the fully developed condition
of those who have not yet received the meat of knowledge
but are still fed on milk. Post-natural motion is found in
those who (while in a natural condition) desire to live in
an ordered manner , and comprises many divisions , like the
angelic and super-angelic. Extra-natural motion appertains
to those who have a tendency towards evil in the natural
sphere , and are then called sinners , and afterwards beasts
and animals. Super-natural motion is that which is above
the post-natural : instead of having many divisions and de¬
grees and being governed by forms (as the latter is) , it is
a still and silent perturbation , a proceeding without a way ,
and a knowledge raised above forms ; still it desires because
it is not confusedly mingled. Ultra-natural motion is beyond
the extra-natural , for it belongs to demons and to those
minds which have completely left the whole nature of the
Good and acquired a certain union with the Prince (of
Darkness) 2).
There exist in the space between earth and heaven three
1) For the explanation of this we must call attention to the absolute
identification in Hierotheos of nature (rdLiA) , i. e. universal nature ,
with the arch-good A\OJL»l) or agatharchy (xyaQap%i'a) , the
first principle, which in the beginning contained all things undistinguished
within itself.
2) Of these six motions, three are vital and three destructive: the
former are , in order of progression , the natural , post-natural , and super¬
natural (compare with the aSo-piiot;, 7repnt6<riuo<; and v7repx6(riJ.io<; of Dionysios) ;
the latter are, the original motion out of the Good, the extra-natural
and the ultra-natural.
Frothingham , Bar Sudaili.
7
08
essences of demons , each of which has received its place
according to the measure of its departure from the Good.
The lower is darker than the upper, and wages a fiercer
war against minds during their ascendent motion. While the
mind possesses natural motion, it is combated by the first
of these essences; when post-natural, by the two lower: and
when it ascends (supernaturally), it is overwhelmed by all
of them, for they desire to make it like unto themselves.
Ascent of the mind .
Now the end of the labor of minds is this glorious ascent,
for God does not desire that minds should fall , and wishes
to bring them back unto himself. Those who desire to rise
(unto the Father) must unite the Good-Nature which is in
them with its essence, and remove from themselves all tra¬
ces of the opposing principle. To do this, they must purify
their soul and body, that their garments may be clean;
otherwise they will fall in the ascent. When the mind as¬
cends , the body is as if dead , and the soul is absorbed in
the mind, which is carried up and becomes oblivious of every¬
thing on earth. All the essences of demons gather together
to oppose it; but it vanquishes them, and the Lord raises
it with the hand of his goodness up to the firmament , and
the angelic hosts cry out: Lift up your heads , 0 ye gates ,
and the king of glory shall enter1).
When the mind is made worthy to ascend above the fir¬
mament, which is the middle wall of separation, it is like
1) Psalm XXIV, 7.
99
a new-born child which passes from darkness unto light.
During the labor of its ascent the mind is strengthened by
its own natural desire for absorption, and by the aid it re¬
ceives from the various essences through which it passes,
and which communicate successively unto it the mysteries
of their knowledge. As the mind rises, it becomes the puri¬
fier and sanctifier of the essences below it, and partakes,
with those through which it passes, of the sacrament of the
Eucharist, by which it communicates unto them the perfec¬
tion of its intelligence and receives from them the mysteries
of their order. These essences , recognizing in it the supreme
nature of the Good , assemble also to offer it adoration. Hav¬
ing passed the multitude of heavens, the mind arrives in
the place called distinction, which is the boundary separa¬
ting the upper world from our own : here does it rest from
its labors. Then proceeding on its way, it reaches the holy
place of the Gross : here it understands that it is to endure
its passion and suffer crucifixion, in the same manner that
Christ suffered; for unless the mind undergoes all that Christ
suffered , it cannot be perfected. Then is the mind crucified
in the centre by the angels, who , from being its worshippers,
are turned into its haters: while the soul and body, being
separated from it, are crucified, the former on its right and
the latter on its left. Then is sin vanquished and destroyed.
This is to be understood figuratively and symbolically.
The sufferings of the cross may have to be endured more
than once , nay ten or even twenty times ; as many as there
are grades separating the mind from the primary essence.
For all minds do not descend into bodies from one essence
alone , but from many1): these essences are more or less
1) This is strongly Origenistic.
1 00
perfect according to their descent from the Good. Thus those
minds which descended from the essence of the Father need
but one purification by the cross ; those which descended
from that of the Son need two, and from the Holy Spirit
three; and thus through the entire legion of essences. Minds
come into the body also from the essence of demons.
When all is consummated , the mind is laid in the se¬
pulchre to rest there for three days.
BOOK THIRD.
On the third day the mind rises and reunites unto itself
its purified soul and body, which in this new, unchange¬
able, and immortal life are subjected unto it, having been
in the former life its subjectors. Although by this experience
the mind has become greatly purified , yet , as its sins have
been many, it must undergo many purifications. The Good-
principle in it has a still greater desire to unite itself unto
its essence, and by it becomes transfigured before the eyes
of the angels. Now does it acquire the motion of union 1).
Nevertheless the root of evil and opposition has not yet been
eradicated from it, but, gathering its forces , begins to re-ap-
pear , and grows up into an immense tree , whose wide-spreading
branches cast darkness over divine minds and shade them
from the perfect light of the Good. In the long and terrible
combat which follows, the mind many times cuts down and
destroys the branches of the tree, but it ever shoots anew
with equal strength from the undestroyed root. Finally by
1) That is of identification with Christ.
101
divine illumination the mind sees that it must descend to the
lowest regions, where the roots of the tree of evil are plan¬
ted , and eradicate them. Then begins for the mind a sor¬
rowful return , through the regions by which it had ascended,
down below the earth. There it combats with the fierce de¬
mons of the North, South, East and West, and, finally, is
vanquished and slain by them. Immediately however Christ ,
the great mind, is revealed, opens the gates of Sche3ol ,
and descending brings to life and raises up the mind from
the infernal regions. It again swiftly and peacefully makes
its second ascent through the regions which it formerly tra¬
versed. It is then made worthy of the spiritual baptism of
the Spirit and of fire , without which there is no life. After
this there is no obstacle to the mind being in everything
not merely like unto but identical with Christ, and it re¬
ceives the adoration of all the heavenly hosts, for it now
obtains the power of divine high-priesthood , and is made
worthy of union with the Good. The mind is now no longer
mind , hut is the Son , who doeth all according to his will ,
is judge of all, creates and makes alive, orders and con¬
stitutes. Christ is no longer adored, but minds, for Christ
is nothing but the mind purified, which can say: all
power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth 1), and , there
is no God beside me 2). For Christ is the Lord of those who
are asleep , and not of those who are awakened 3).
1) Matthew XXVIII , 18. 2) Isaiah XLV , 5 etc.
3) Kliocn r<ArC' . >cnc\^Y*r<' 'pXtt KiA
^\cv.x- A.* >A ac acn
»158 i-nA oqAk' <VuAaa . . . rd_^.ir<L=jC\ ixn.i
^cnctA AvA Ai^sqcx . ^A*r^ ....
. jCtdcnAuk' r£&sa.i.i reUmrsa.i A\pa .
i (Pi
Then the mind, which is now Christ, communicates unto
the angelic hosts, in the holy of holies, the spiritual Eu¬
charist, of which the terrestrial is but the type and faint
shadow. After this it rises again unto the place where there
is no longer vision, to be united unto the tree of life, unto
the Universal Essence.
BOOK FOURTH.
The Universal Essence has been previously defined , but
only partially; in its essence, not in its operations. It is
contemplated by the mind in mystery and silence , and the
latter receives from, it complete love and union. It also im¬
parts unto the mind three mysterious and unspeakable
doctrines :
that of the distinction of minds;
that of the coming of the mind into the body; and
what becomes of the nature of alt things.
In all this is the mind instructed by the High-Priest of
the Universal Essence , who lays upon it the solemn injunc¬
tion of silence. Leaving him, the mind continues its ascent
accompanied by all the essences perfected and sanctified by
it. For all minds which are perfected must pass through all
the stations and receive all the forms which are below the
Good, and through which they had fallen. The mind has
now reached Paradise, where Adam by the first distinction
suffered the fall , and it is shown by the watch the way
to the Tree of Life, unto which it desires to unite itself,
for this would be the consummation of visions and the per¬
fection of mysteries. But now the Adversary , Satan , knowing
1 03
its desire, changes himself into (lie semblance of* the Tree
of Life, and is revealed as the Man of Sin , the Son of Per¬
dition , sitting as God in the temple of God l) and saying :
I am the bread which came down from heaven ; whoso eateth
of me shall live for ever 2). The mind therefore, being de¬
ceived, hastens to unite itself unto this evil essence, which
appears unto it as the Tree of Life. Then is Christ, the
great mind , revealed , to take vengeance on this deceptive
nature: he stamps it to the ground and burns it with fire,
having separated from it the Good-nature of the mind. Fi¬
nally the mind, led by Christ, approaches unto and unites
itself with the Tree of Life and possesses quiet and rest.
Men say that the Tree of Life is Christ, but I say that it
is above him.
When the mind desires to pass this place , it is told :
remain in thy place. It then receives a mystic sword , with
which to exterminate the demons , the enemies of the Lord,
by descending to the places under the earth : for the Fa¬
ther judgeth no man , but has committed all judgment unto
the Son 3). It again takes a downward course , and this time
with joy, for it knows that the adversative nature cannot,
as at first, oppose it. The divine mind enters the gates of
SheDol , and all the essences of demons gather themselves
1) II Thessal. II , 3.
2) John VI, 51. The Syriac text reads: ct3T=j T<lx_iT3
a on rc'i^rc' ^onaiuK'.i) K'cn_\rC\i cars c\ _ Kli.i-aK'.i
rdjnc.l cnz£^ A.2*. VSOKilO . rC'crAfX' vyr<" (. rcWnx.
v r ctoix- rtilK' KtiK' . ,A>a\ ab\ . KlirC
. }a\.2*A >Al ^3 . .
3) John V , 22.
104
together to combat against it ; but they are overthrown and
destroyed, and the minds suffering torments are delivered,
enlightened and forgiven. The infernal regions also are illu¬
minated and purified , so that they are no whit less bright
than the' celestial regions. Now has the mind cast out from
itself the whole of the adversative nature: it wishes also to
destroy the head of opposition, and sees that it is what had
appeared to it as the Tree of Life, and so cuts it down.
All the minds which had been slaves to perdition now desire
to be united to the Divine Mind and saved; but, as is meet
for the Son, it orders judgment and adjudges torments to
sinners and demons , and descends further to the place of
the Prince of darkness, and finally to the Sun and the Moon :
this infernal sun is a gift of the Good, in order that the ra¬
tional beings in this place should not perish. When the mind
has passed She^ol and the lowest abyss , it reaches the place
where there is no longer vision. Still lower, in the place
below all places, are the roots of evil, which it is moved
to destroy. Now when it is said that the mind destroys de¬
mons, it is meant that it destroys them in itself and not
in their essence; and when it destroys these roots, it means
that it ivill be united unto the Good alone .
After the mind has thus decreed judgment in Gehenna ,
it desires to see the Insensible Essence , which is the rebel¬
lious essence. This does not possess any name that is named
on the earth or under the earth , neither does it possess
anything of nature l) : those who are imprisoned in it cannot
obtain resurrection or life. It is irrational, unconscious, life¬
less, and insensible, and has received the name of Not-being.
In the beginning it bore no fruits, and, after being proved,
1) i. e. of the Good: cf. p. 97 n. 1.
105
it was condemned and fell from being mind , first to being
man , then animal , beast , demon , devil , and finally became
insensible and contumacious, having entirely left its Good and
its Nature. Although the mind stretches out its band unto
it, yet does it not submit.
All is now fulfilled in the places under the earth : the
mind, as it begins its ascent, sees all those whom it has
slain lying before it, and is moved with great desire to
become the Father, to raise them all from the dead, and
to have mercy upon them. Then will it extend its goodness
unto all, both good and evil, and make them all like itself.
Then there comes a wonderful voice before the resurrection
crying: Gome from the four ivinds , 0 breath , and breathe
upon these slain that they may live 1). All the minds which
descended from Essence are raised and approach the Divine
Mind, which says unto them: Ye are my brethren: for
truly are ye bone of my bones , and flesh of my flesh 2) ;
and they are united unto it in order that they may ascend
with it.
When the Divine Mind has passed all this, it descends
, below all essences and sees a luminous essence whose divine
light is formless : it marvels greatly that this is the same
essence which it had seen on high. Now does it comprehend
the true theory of Essence, — that it fills the whole uni¬
verse, — and cries: If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there , and if I descend to hell , there also art thou. And if
I raise the wings of my understanding like those of the
eagle, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea , even there
shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me3).
1) Ezechiel XXXVII , 9.
2) Genesis II , 23.
3) Psalm CXXXIX ,8— 10.
100
The mind approaches and unites itself unto this luminous
\
essence, and looks above and below, the length and the
breadth , and encloses in itself everything. It will now no
• longer ascend or descend, for it is all-containing1).
The mind has now left the name of Christ, for it has
passed distinction , reason , and word , and it will no longer
he said: Father glorify thy Son that thy Son also may
glorify thee 2) , for all distinction of the glorifler and the glo¬
rified has passed away. Love also (the Spirit) is still a sign of
distinction, for it implies a person loving and one loved; —
this also do perfect minds pass beyond, for they go beyond
every name that is named.
For when distinction 3) arose , all perfect and holy minds
1) This is the Ultima Thule of Pantheistic absorption. What follows is
not posterior in time, but simply contemplates the same result from a
different standpoint.
2) John XVII , 1.
3) We give as a specimen the entire 21st chapter of the fourth book,
entitled rdsajj » On love”, from which the passage here quoted
is taken. ^A*pdA.*tO r<Lsa-jj > an oAv*rd rdJLSB.ia rdsa.jj A^.
rd.sa.-4j jcnoiurd . rd-lrd rdajjJS3 pd-lrd .. u-T n
rdovjjo iurdcnApd rd.i . rdi\r..’VDO rdiuA.i rdA>a^A\aaL
j.A*rdA ^.i rdird . .SjjlSj K&OaIWjA.i rds 3 ocnA . AurdcaxSaix
rdco . rd4>a*i.jj ^58 Ard . rdird rdl^cn.i
rd\ . rdlX-ia2i.l >ci3oA\*rd pdi>pd rd-sajj.l caJSll-O
^ JS3 • I nA ' d • .T_4J in
“n .’1^3 rdll.m^.1 ^*^50 . vSjJlS3 criA.i oc h ^JS3C\
AuajjA\rd ix^Jrd .rdbOjji rd-lcn >cnc\A\*rd rdl-*iA\
rdA>rd rd-sO-jj c\ on .2ird.i . rdiiAjSi-s ^3
a on
107
were both glorified and glorifiers: glorified by men and an -
pdA* rdl . ^.A.»rd rdAOcaAo ^*.1 rd V-vO . rdl_x.ic\2i.i
rt^CU.Tw.l Gen rdsax. ^3 ndaAl ^.l.»T^3rdo ja.i\ ^c\cyA rdao.x.
A\ird . rdraOjj.i rdxxa ix.^3 02x30^ >cnoAurd:i <A ^ajjaoAiAu
tdAvsaxjiAa rdArd . rdocnA> rdraOxa .icuA=3 rdA >ya
rdxxxz ix. rd\rdi=j .2^1^33 . iri^- rdAto.*:v*Aa . jaccnx.
,i=) ^*.1 rdlrd . rdaor2»A rdA>a*.VMO rdA\a?lx>ia ndraOx* ^3 AiA
CT13 ^rd . rdArd xxnxtJO rdAvsawi rd* ijoAlsa:! rdlcnA rdAo
lajji.l rdl^rdA T_x_^^ rd^Ard . rdArd rdv.» rdlX-io^l )o.i^3
. lax>iA\a73.i pdl.*pdAa ^.1 tA^jo ^?30 . )ax>i rdaoal rdlixardAi
A_xAXA?3 rA . ^axaiAu ocn AK' rdJVwK' ^a.TAz) ^.jso
. a*oA\x.rd rdAtoixsa^.i ^A.»rd pdjocn . f.xzixx'ia ore' ^isax>i
rdinAvaa.i rdjiax. A* ^jycnizn rd_aA ix\^ ^nai
. rdsux. ^*3 AiA pd»ix. rdAi Axi^ ^ocno . 'pxzn rda.jj£?30
rduuLX^a.i rd»ix.a ix^ rden . rdAAafl ^3 AaA rdA\\a?3 rdXua
rdl_*rdlO . JJL-1J233.1 rdJifl 003.1 . ^A >cnaAurd )o .1-233 rdA>rd
rdA . ndlxxx^Acsaa rdwajL^ i-x-^ ix^o ^Jsn . xxX.^Aobi
rdli^Au rdAi >A\.A73rd Aurd ^lird . ^*iA\ rdArd l_x> rdocn
rdAPi-X. Ard ^A >ctd rdxiAArd . rt InA^ ^n-s> ^iA> rdAOcn
,CT3oA\_*fd rdi-ai rd-=>rd.i ix\^ ooa-Ard . jaixxaA pdxxxX.'sa.i
^*1A8 ^iA> . K'i-s >CT3oAv»rd rd_=jrdn _raoA> rdi_=jO : rd_=ard
rdArd . cn.a73 Avxaz) rdira.i goto rdrard . ^3 ^ Ooq* A\*rd
: T*i^ Ax*2kS73 rdA:i . rdArd a^i_* rdi_xA?i_V^ rdiOcrA
^*1^ ^-x.l JiAAAL . >CT3oAurd rdi-ra rd^rd T~»i_2i.i rdA^rdo
. xxaAvxi rdlx.io.2i rdA.i.i ,Av=*3rd . rdA>oi=ai rdora&sax. rdiocn
108
gels and by the superior and inferior essences , and glorifying
the Good alone which ivas above them. Now when distinction
is removed , they are glorified and are no longer glorifiers ; for
whom should they glorify , as the Good is in them and they
in it? granting it correct to use the expressions in it and
in them , for one is the nature and one the person of them
and of it ; granting it correct to use the terms of them
and of it. Neither will they any longer be named heirs ,
for distinction is blotted out from them , and when there is
no distinction , who can inherit from another ? Come now ,
therefore , and let us glorify with unutterable glory the mind
which no longer glorifies but is glorified.
Neither does the mind receive permanently the name of
. !n£iA\3 0_l_m ^3 : rd3.TP.c\^V^3 »cnO&UV^ i-x-^ rdA
. r^-lx-rnSi >3rdr>! . K'.mnA r<A ne'er)!
^ocrA^ r<l30ci3 ne'-lxx=)A\xmo *ix_^ pdlxxnzm
KiiircAm ^mo r&tirf 3 ix^ ^xjjLraAvxm .
^0103 ^»! '.xxxnxm . A^A.! GOxfiOOK' ^2*30
. K11-X.1CLA {-»! Kim. ^Ocnl^) A_^— \.! !CuAa
T_x_V^ a-l_m.A . Klixxiiz^a Kl\o ^ae qaAuK KLijiraivrm
,ctd j3!\ _ K . cora ^cueno ^oeora n£n\^ Kcni . ^cuxa.Z-1
KLl-xSk Axiim !_x_^ oqa ! _ m! . vmKlmA ^OcoraO coral
coL.iO ^OcoL.i! j3!\ ^K' . crA J.IG ^_Ocri\-»! KlmOln .T-x»a
A^-^pc'i A!^m . ^aiA^vi kA\Hx *=>oi> ^! kAo . imKimX
aim\ aim .* Kliz.ia2i AvA.i ua . Klii-ia^ ^ocoum crA
rdlOcrA . jcnaxAxnzi p^AAm rcAl rdwtraairra ^.\m . 4>-i»
iA\xm nel\K xxnrm Ax^m reA.i ocb
1 09
Divinity ; for tins implies mercy and desire. To describe what
the mind undergoes during this process is beyond the power
of words.
It will then begin'), by a new and holy brooding , to create
a new world , and will create a new man in its image image¬
less , and according to its likeness likenessless . It ivill mete
out heaven with its span} and ivill measure the dust of the
earth with its measure: it will number the drops of the sea ,
and weigh the mountains in a scale 1 2). And who ivill speak
of it. that cannot be spoken? or name it, that cannot be
named? Let us, with the apostle , marvel at a mystery and
say: n Oh the depth and the riches , the wisdom and under¬
standing , above the name of divinity , of the perfect mind
when perfected. For man cannot comprehend its judgments ,
and its ways are inscrutable 3). For who hath known its
mind? or who hath been its counsellor? 4)
1 ) kAvta* k'Axxa.tjoo k'Avu* K&o&MMaia K'ixi AjAsa o
: rci^aX^ KlA.i K&.T—» KLx-iia K'inio . K'insA
Ax^ao . cnAnva kLa» ix. jjosoxio . K&oxa.i kA.i cn^axa.Tao
A<Xo<klo . Klxa.i.1 kAxsA^cu KirsaiO . KL^lK'.i ciais^. ctd\OVd
. v^KAvsa kA.i jcraa^i^aKii Ax^sa Kirsao . r^icAtsarj rc'ioA^
K'tK'* i=3 oosaivi kAi ,cnc\.xika r^.iao
K'fcaawo k'i^o^.o Kin-sac*^. cxk' . i.taK'-io Kim Ax.
rdiocn.i . K^ocrArc'.i Kbrisaa.x. AiA.i . rd^x^ao
Kl\ cnAunorc'o . >ci3CUx.i *jsa KlA t_jK. A^Axx.pc'.i
coA Kb.co cu-ia ok' . cnix^.i ausa . ^.xiJa^^vta
• KlAsa A^-i
2) Isaiah XL , 12.
3) Romans XI , 38 — 34.
4) Isaiah XL, 14.
110
This is but a small part of the glories of the Mind when
it accomplishes all and is confusedly mingled with the Good ,
the universal Creator.
We must now point out the distinction between union1)
and absorption2), and show whether Christ be united or
absorbed. In Union that which is distinguished does not
appear very distinct : hut those things which are united can¬
not throw off all distinction , for in them exists the principle
which distinguishes. On the contrary, in those things which
are absorbed nothing appears which distinguishes or makes
other. Therefore to Christ we give the name of our union .
To absorption can no name be given.
BOOK FIFTH.
All these doctrines, which are unknown even to angels,
have I disclosed unto thee, my son, even though I be, on
this account, despised of men. Know then, that all nature
will be confused with the Father: that nothing will perish
or be destroyed, but all will return, be sanctified, united
and confused. Thus God will be all in all. Even hell will
pass away and the damned return. All orders and distinctions
will cease. God will pass away, and Christ will cease to
1)
2) : the only definition in Payne-Smith is commixtio , but
the cognates and are rendered by confusio. The
two meanings seem inseparable from the root : therefore I have rendered
the verb always by confusedly mingled: in the noun it seemed more ex¬
pressive , as well as rendering more completely the author’s meaning , to
use the term absorption.
1 1 1
be, and the Spirit will no longer be called spirit. Essence
alone will remain.
In the same way that all rational nature is governed by
its laws , so also all irrational nature obeys its special laws.
»My son , preserve my words , place them around thy neck,
and let them be a sign on thy forehead” , for the time has
come that I should pass away: unto thee do 1 bequeath the
sceptre of my right hand.
#
V
.
k - i
,
'
/
: :
-i r i ,
'
.
r
lr*-
i
4»
I
i
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11